Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gandumenu Siva And Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 12 March, 2014
Author: S.Ravi Kumar
Bench: S.Ravi Kumar
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1751 OF 2006 and batch
12-3-2014
Gandumenu Siva and others....Petitioners.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
of A.P., Hyderabad. ...Respondent.
...Respondent.
Counsel for the petitioners: SRI T.S.N.MURTHY,
SMT. D.SANGEETHA REDDY AND
SRI N.SIVA REDDY
Counsel for respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 13 (AP)
2. AIR 2005 SC 2804 (1)
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1751 OF 2006, 1753 of 2006,
1754 of 2006 and 1755 of 2006
Dated 12-3-2014
COMMON ORDER:
These revisions are preferred against judgment dated 24-10-2006 in Criminal Appeal Nos.119 of 2006, 123 of 2006, 140 of 2006 and 154 of 2006 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry whereunder judgment dated 17-5-2006 in S.C.No.8 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town CCS, Rajahmundry filed Charge Sheet against the revision petitioners and another for offences under Sections 489-B, 489-C, 489-D and 120-B I.P.C. alleging that on 1-4-2000, P.W.4 the then Inspector of CCS, Rajahmundry Town on credible information arrested A.1 at Ambika cool drink shop at about 5 P.M., in the presence of mediators Bhavaraju Sulbbarao (P.W.3) and Patnala Subbarao under suspicious circumstances and seized 3,100 counterfeit currency notes from his possession under the cover of a mediator report. On the confession made by A.1, Inspector of Police, CCS with his staff and mediators proceeded to Modern Rice Mill in Kondaguntur village of Rajanagaram and arrested A.2 to A.7 at about 6-30 P.M., and seized 297 counterfeit currency notes from A.2, 200 counterfeit currency notes from A.3, 400 counterfeit currency notes from A.4, 400 counterfeit currency notes from of A.5, 100 counterfeit currency notes from A.6 and 100 counterfeit currency notes from A.7 under the cover of a mediator's report. On the confession of A.5, Inspector of Police CCS, proceeded to the house of Chitturi Ramakrishna in Venkatanarayanapuram street of Tanuku and from that house, seized 400 counterfeit currency notes, computer, scanner, key board, mouse, mouse pad, two speakers, one CPU and two flopies which were produced by A.5 under the cover of a mediator's report at about 10 P.M., on the same day. Basing on these three mediators reports, crime No.40 of 2000 was registered under Section 489-B, 489-C, 498-D and 120-B I.P.C. On 15-4-2000, at about 5.30 P.M., Inspector of Police CCS, Rajahmundry arrested A.8 and A.9 at the reception counter of Uma Shankar Lodge at Syamala centre, Rajahmundry in the presence of mediators and seized 1000 counterfeit currency notes from A.8 and 200 counterfeit currency notes from A.9 under the cover of a mediator's report.
Subsequently, 10 counterfeit currency notes out of seized currency notes were sent to F.S.L. Hyderabad for examination and F.S.L. after examining them issued a report stating that those notes are fake notes, thus investigation revealed that all the accused are indulged in preparation and circulation of fake currency notes and they are liable for punishment. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and documents Exs.P.1 to P.10 besides material objects 1 to 18 are marked. No witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found all the nine accused guilty for the offence under Section 489-C and found them not guilty for the other offences under Sections 489-B and 120-B I.P.C. and A.5 was found not guilty for the offence under Section 489-D I.P.C. Trial court sentenced all the accused with rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.500/- each, for the offence under Section 489-C I.P.C. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, A.4 preferred Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2006, A.6 preferred Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2006, A.1 to A.3, A.5 and A.9 preferred Criminal Appeal No.140 of 2006 and A.7 preferred Criminal Appeal No.154 of 2006. Learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry tried these appeals jointly and by a common judgment dated 24-10-2006 dismissed all the appeals confirming conviction and sentence of the trial court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeals, A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.5 preferred Criminal Revision Case No.1751 of 2006, A.4 preferred Criminal Revision Case No.1753 of 2006, A.7 preferred Criminal Revision Case No.1754 of 2006 and A.9 preferred Criminal Revision Case No.1755 of 2006.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is contended on behalf of revision petitioners that P.W.1 who is a mediator for Exs.P.5 and P.6 panchanamas has not supported the prosecution case and the remaining three witnesses i.e., P.W.2 to 4 are highly interested witnesses and there are discrepancies in their evidence but trial court and appellate court have not considered these discrepancies. It is further contended that P.W.3 is the same mediator for all the mediator reports that were prepared at Rajahmulndry, Kondaguntur near Rajanagaram and Tanuku and he is a stock mediator and he has not identified the accused persons and these aspects are not considered by the trial court and appellate court. It is further contended that no witnesses are collected from Kondaguntur area and Tanuku for the alleged arrest and seizure. They further contended that evidence of P.W.3 is not at all reliable and there is no other evidence to support the prosecution version and therefore, conviction recorded against revision petitioners has to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is sufficient to prove offence under Section 489-C I.P.C. and that both the trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted the revision petitioners and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings. He further submitted that as P.W.1 has not supported the prosecution case, the other charge i.e., offence under Section 489-D is held to be not proved and A.5 is acquitted of the said charge on that score.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
7. POINT:
Though revision petitioners are charged for the offences under Sections 489-B, 489-C, 489-D and 120-B I.P.C., they are only convicted for the offence under Section 489-C I.P.C. and they are acquitted of the remaining charges. To prove offence under Section 489-C, what all required is that the currency notes in question must be a forged or counterfeit, secondly, the accused person must be in possession of it, thirdly, the accused must know that it is a forged or counterfeit or must have reason to believe it to be so when he was found in possession of it and lastly, if he is intended to use it as genuine or it must be used as genuine. To prove the same, four witnesses are examined and out of which, P.W.1 who is the owner of the house at Tanuku has not supported the prosecution case. On the basis of confession of arrested persons, police and mediators have proceeded to the house of P.W.1. According to the confession of the arrested persons, A.5 is residing in the house of P.W.1 and there, the preparation process is being done. Police seized computer, scanner etc., from the building of P.W.1, in which, A.5 was said to be a tenant. But, P.W.1 deposed that A.5 never resided in his house and no property was seized from the possession of A.5. As P.W.1 has not supported prosecution case and as there was no other material, A.5 is acquitted of the charge under Section 489-D I.P.C.
8. P.W.2 is a receptionist at Umashakar lodge situated opposite to Syamala theatre who deposed that on 15-4-2000 at about 4.30 P.M., two persons came to their lodge with bags and enquiring for a room in the lodge, in the meantime, Circle Inspector (P.W.4) with his staff and mediators came there and searched the bags in possession of those two persons and found 1200 fake currency notes and that both of them were arrested under the cover of a mediator report.
9. P.W.3 is the mediator who deposed that on 1-4-2000 at about 4-30 P.M., he was called to II Town Police Station Rajahmundry and he accompanied Inspector of Police, (Crimes), Rajahmundry, four other police officials and one Apparao to Ambika cool drink shop situated in Kotipalli bus stand where A.1 was found under suspicious circumstances. He deposed that police caught A.1 in his presence and when search was conducted, A.1 was found in possession of 300 counterfeit notes and that Inspector of Police arrested him and seized the fake currency notes and that Ex.P.2 is the mediator report. He further deposed that they arrested A.1, took them to Kondaguntur village to a rice mill and there the Inspector conducted search under Ex.P.4 where A.2 to A.7 were arrested and counterfeit currency notes were recovered from them under Ex.P.5 proceedings. He further deposed that they proceeded to Tanuku to the house of P.W.1 and seized computer and other articles under Ex.P.6 proceedings. P.W.4 is the Inspector of Police who effected arrest and conducted investigation.
10. Now the objection of the advocate for revision petitioners is that P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer and also the person who detected the offence and conviction based on such evidence cannot be sustained.
11. To support their arguments, they placed reliance on a decision of this court in GURAJALA RAMESH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF A.P. (1). In that case, F.I.R. was registered on the report given by the police officer who arrested the accused and the same officer investigated the case which procedure was declared as incorrect and conviction on such investigation held as not sustainable. But, here, in our case, F.I.R. is not on the basis of any report given by P.W.4 who arrested the accused person. The very same objection was raised before the appellate court relying on the very same decision and the learned appellate judge, after distinguishing the facts of this case and the facts in the reported decision, held that it has no application. I do not find any wrong in the findings of the appellate court with regard to application of the reported decision.
12. The other objection of the revision petitioners is that P.W.3 is the mediator for all the proceedings from 1-4-2002 to 15-4-2002 and he admitted in his evidence that he acted as mediator for number of cases and therefore, relying on such evidence, to convict accused persons is not proper.
13. Here, P.W.3 is a Village Secretary and Ex.Village Administrative Officer of Rajahmundry urban. Normally, in important cases, police would take the services of Village Secretary or Village Administrative Officer as a mediator, so, in that capacity, P.W.3 might have acted as a mediator for the same police station. For that, his testimony cannot be brushed aside unless there is material to show that he is a professional mediator, or enmical towards accused.
14. Here, the evidence of P.W.3 remained unshaken in spite of cross examination on behalf of the revision petitioners. His evidence is quite convincing and supported with the contents of mediators reports Exs.P.2 to P.6 and P.8. Here on 1-4-2000, police first arrested A.1 on reliable information. When A.1 made confession, police carried the same mediators to Kondaguntur also and at Kondaguntur when the arrested persons revealed some information with regard to material at Tanuku, police proceeded with same mediators to Tanuku also. There is nothing unnatural in taking the services of same mediator P.W.3 at all the three places. Advocate for respective revision petitioners vehemently contended that for not collecting witnesses from the respective places i.e., Kondagunturu and Tanuku but for the reasons stated supra, their objection cannot be sustained.
15. The next objection of the revision petitioners is that P.Ws.2 and 3 have not identified any of the accused persons but that benefit was not extended to accused.
16. This objection was raised before the appellate court. Learned appellate judge discarded this objection on the ground that both P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined in the court after a lapse of six years and therefore, it is natural that their memory must have been faded by afflux of time and therefore, there is nothing wrong in identifying the accused persons, on the other hand, it is a natural phenomena. I do not find any wrong in the findings of the appellate court because when the evidence is taken after lapse of six years, it is highly difficult to any person to remember the features of a person seen at only one time. Therefore, the objection of the revision petitioner with regard to non- identity cannot be sustained. Learned appellate judge has elaborately considered this point and very correctly held that the said objection is not tenable.
17. The next point urged on behalf of revision petitioners is that when the trial court acquitted the revision petitioners for the remaining offences on the basis of same evidence, convicting them for the offence under Section 489-C on the same evidence is not legal and to support their argument, they relied on a decision of Supreme Court in MUKHTIAR AHMED ANSARI v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI),(2) In that case, the accused therein was charged for the offence of kidnapping and also under the provisions of Arms Act and TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (28 of 1987).
18. The main charge against the accused therein is kidnapping and other two allegations are using arms or involving activities attracting TADA. When the main offence of kidnap is not proved, trial court acquitted the accused of the main charge of kidnap but convicted for the offence under TADA and also under Arms Act. This was found incorrect by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground when accused are acquitted of the main charge, the other charges by using arms is only a consequential thing for committing the main offence. But, here in this case, the three offences charged against the revision petitioners are distinct. Section 489-C is only for possessing counterfeit currency note. Whereas Section 489-B is for use of forged or counterfeit currency notes and 489-D is for making counterfeit currency notes or possessing instruments or material for preparation of counterfeit currency notes. As there was no evidence for possession of machinery for making counterfeit currency notes, and for use of counterfeit currency notes, the revision petitioners are acquitted of those two charges but since there is evidence for possession of counterfeit currency notes, knowing it to be fake currency, trial court convicted them. So, there is nothing wrong in convicting the revision petitioners for the offence under Section 489-C and the objection of the revision petitioners is not at all tenable.
19. On a scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the considered view that both courts have rightly appreciated evidence on record and came to a right conclusion and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
20. For these reasons, it is held that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by trial court and upheld by appellate court and all the revisions are liable to be dismissed.
21. In the result, these Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
22. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
_______________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 12-3-2014.