Kerala High Court
Abdul Rehman Kunju Iqubal vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2008
Author: V.K.Mohanan
Bench: V.K.Mohanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 429 of 1999()
1. ABDUL REHMAN KUNJU IQUBAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :12/11/2008
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
These two appeals arise out of a judgment dated 28.6.1999 in Sessions Case No.56 of 1991 of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Kollam. Crl.A.No.429 of 1999 is preferred by Accused No.11 in the above sessions case challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him. Crl.A.No.2106 of 2005 is the appeal preferred by the State challenging the order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 9 by the court below as per the impugned judgment.
2. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.3 to 5, 9 and 6 entered into a criminal conspiracy during the period between December, 1977 and August 1979 to counterfeit the Indian Currency Notes of denomination 2 and to transact with that counterfeit currency notes using them as genuine and in pursuance of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the common intention, Accused No.9 manufactured the blocks and Accused No.6 effected purchase of the press and installed the press within the room in the residential house of Accused Nos.3 and 4 at Paloor Village in Vilavencode Taluk and Accused No.6 purchased the printing ink Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-2-:
and paper and the accused printed the counterfeit Indian Currency Notes and they were in possession of the accused intending to use the same as genuine and Accused Nos.1 to 4 were in possession of counterfeit notes and Accused No.6 delivered such notes to Accused No.10 who in turn along with Accused Nos.11 and 12 took the notes to the house of CW-19 and Accused No.6 delivered to Accused Nos.7 and 8 and such counterfeit currency notes printed in 43 sheets without any number thereon. On the basis of the above allegation, a crime was registered in the Vellarada Police Station as Crime No.209/79 for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 489 A to D and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Originally, there were 12 accused. Investigation was undertaken by the C.B.C.I.D., Thiruvananthapuram and hence, the above crime in the Vellarada Police Station was refiled as 146/CR/79 of C.B.C.I.D., Thiruvananthapuram.
3. On completing the investigation, final report was filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of Second Class-II, Neyyattinkara wherein C.P.No.15/1990 was instituted. As per the order dated 11.3.1991 in C.P.No.15/1990, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Special Court, Kollam wherein Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-3-:
S.C.No.56/1991 was instituted. During the course of trial, Accused Nos.6,7 and 10 died and the charge against them stood abated. Accused Nos.8 and 12 were absconding and the case against them had been split up. Thus, the trial was proceeded against the remaining accused viz., A1 to A5, A9 to A11. The accused were defended by engaging Advocates of their own. On the basis of the allegations contained in the final report and the materials thereon and after hearing both the prosecution as well as the defence, a formal charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 489 D read with Section 34 of I.P.C. When the incriminating circumstances, which were brought out through prosecution evidence, were put to the accused, they denied the same and they took a stand of total denial. Based upon the rival contentions and pleadings, the trial court formulated seven points for its consideration. Finally, the trial court found that Accused No.11 was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 489 C and D I.P.C. and he was found not guilty of all other offences charged. Accused Nos.1 to 4, 5 and 9 were found not guilty of all charges levelled against them and they were accordingly acquitted under Section 235 of Cr.P.C. After hearing Accused No.11 on the question of sentence on his Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-4-:
conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under Section 489 of I.P.C. With respect to the offence punishable under Section 489 D of I.P.C., Accused No.11 was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. It was ordered that the substantive sentence of imprisonment should run concurrently. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was allowed. Challenging the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in favour of accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 5 and 9, the State preferred Crl.A.No.2106 of 2005 and challenging the conviction and sentence, Accused No.11 filed Crl.A.No.429 of 1999.
4. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and the facts and circumstances involved are one and the same, these appeals were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, canvassing for an order of conviction by reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial court as per the impugned judgment, pointed out that the Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-5-:
reasons given by the Sessions Judge for the acquittal of the accused are not sound and not justifiable. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the grounds of acquittal are unsustainable as the same are flimsy and contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that one of the grounds taken by the trial court for acquittal is the delay in producing MO-1 with respect to accused Nos.1 to 4. According to the learned Judge, though the seizure was on 3.8.1979, the materials reached in the court only on 20.2.1980.
The other reason is that two parts of the hand machines viz., MO1 were missing and therefore, by using the above machinery, the offence could not be committed. The other point is that MO19 can/bottle was having the smell of kerosene and not the smell of any other liquid alleged to have used by the accused for the purpose of committing the offence. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the trial court miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record and though the involvement of the accused Nos.5 and 9 proved beyond doubt, the trial court without appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective acquitted those accused and therefore, she prays that the order of acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 5 and 9 may be reversed and they may be Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-6-:
convicted accordingly.
6. Supporting the order of acquittal passed by the court below, the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4 and 5 submitted that the trial court came into such conclusion on the basis of materials and evidence on record and upon correct appreciation of the same. The reason for acquittal recorded by the court below is cogent and convincing. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is not liable to be interfered with.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.429 of 1999 submits that Accused No.11 was convicted only upon the evidence given by PW12 and PW15. The learned counsel submits that the evidence of Pws.12 and 15 cannot be believed as the same are not free from doubt. There are material discrepancies and contradictions in their evidence. According to the learned counsel, there is no evidence to show that from whose possession MOs.7 to 9 were taken and who kept the same. The learned counsel submits that the mahazar is silent on this aspect. Counsel also pointed out that another witness namely, PW13 is not aware of any role played by Accused No.11.
The above submission is made by the learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of the finding and observation made by Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-7-:
the trial court in paragraph 24 of the judgment, which is extracted herein for convenience.
"So far as A11 is concerned, there is no evidence before the court from whose possession Mos.7 to 9 were kept;
Mahazar is silent about it. According to PW13, he was not specific regarding the involvement of A11. Therefore, on the basis of evidence of Pws.12 and 15 and Ext.P19, there cannot be any liability fastened of A11."
According to the learned counsel, if that be so, absolutely there is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the alleged offence against appellant/accused No.11. On the strength of the decision of this Court reported in Dr.Louis .V. Pulickal v. State of Kerala [1997(2) KLT 233], learned counsel submits that the delay occurred in the trial resulted in manifest injustice to the appellant. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the order of conviction passed by the court below against the appellant is against the observation and finding arrived on by the court below during the appreciation of evidence and therefore, the order of conviction is highly arbitrary and illegal.
8. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-8-:
by the learned Public Prosecutor in support of her fervent plea against the acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 5 and 9 and also the argument of learned counsel for the appellant for acquittal of the appellant namely, A11 in the above case. I have also perused the evidence and materials on record.
9. Going by the evidence and materials on record, it can be seen that the prosecution mainly depends upon the oral evidence of PW11 to prove the allegations against Accused Nos. 1 to 4. According to PW11, on 3.8.1979, he got information against the involvement of Accused Nos.1 to 4 in trafficking forged notes and he accordingly proceeded to the spot. Thereafter, he arrested the accused after seizure of the counterfeit notes after explaining the same in the mahazar. Thereafter, he registered Crime No.209/79 for the offence under Section 489 C and E read with Section 34 of I.P.C. According to PW11, Accused No.1 was in possession of the notes in a purse kept by him and Accused No.3 was in possession of the notes in a bundle rapped by newspaper. After the appreciation of the evidence namely, the oral deposition of PW11 and the perusal of the documents, the trial court found that in Ext.P1, there is no mentioning from where the accused produced the material Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-9-:
objects. The trial court found that though PW1 stated that the accused himself produced the material objects, there is no answer as to from where they got it and from where it was produced. The trial court also found that the material objects Mos.2 to 5 could not be used or passed as genuine notes in the ordinary course. In this respect, it is relevant to note that as correctly observed by the trial court, except the interested version of PW11 and the so-called Ext.P1 mahazar, there is no independent evidence to render assurance and correctness of the evidence of PW11 and Ext.P1. It is relevant to note that when PW11 was examined, he had admitted that there is no mentioning in Ext.P1 as to from where accused Nos.2 to 4 produced the material objects. Here also, to a question as to from where MO6 purse was produced, PW11 answered that Accused No.1 produced MO6 purse from some part of his body and being an experienced officer, PW11, to a very crucial and important question answered that in the ordinary course, Mos. cannot be used as genuine. It was also stated that such transaction would depend upon the persons to whom it is transacted. It was also stated that in Ext.P1, it was described that the ink used in printing Mos. spread over the same. Besides Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-10-:
the above infirmities which cut the route of the prosecution case, there is substantial delay in reaching the contraband article Mos. in the court. According to the prosecution, MOs. were seized on 3.8.1979, but the same reached in the court only on 20.2.1980.
There is no explanation at all for the above delay. Thus, it can be seen that the evidence of PW11 contains contradiction and substantial infirmities and he had also stated that he does not know as to from where Accused Nos.1 to 4 produced the material objects. It is also the case of PW11 that MOs. which are alleged to have seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 4 cannot be used in the ordinary course. Thus, mainly, considering the above legal inflow of the prosecution evidence, and that too in the absence of any independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecution though it is vague, the trial court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4. The finding arrived on by the trial court for the acquittal appears to be based upon materials and evidences and there is no illegality or perversity in the finding of the court below. Thus, no case is made out to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the court below by exercising the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the court below in favour of accused Nos.1 to Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-11-:
4 is liable to be confirmed.
10. To prove the allegation against accused No.5 and his involvement in the commission of offence, the prosecution mainly depends upon the oral testimony of PW4, PW5, PW6 to PW18 and the documentary evidence such as Exts.P3,P4 and P7 and also the material objects namely MOs.26 series and MO.1 series MO.1 is a hand machine. Admittedly, two main parts of the same were missing. As per Ext.P7 mahazar and the evidence of PW10, two main parts of the machines were missing and the press could be in working condition if the parts are assembled.
Thus, the trial court found that the evidence of Pws.5 and 6 and Ext.P10 cannot in any way create any incriminating circumstances against Accused No.5. It was also found that MO 26 series apparently forged notes of Rs.20/- are concerned, it could be seen that they were seized as per Ext.P3 at the time of arrest of accused No.5. After appreciating the evidence, the trial court held that the fifth accused did not face the trial for the possession of MO26 series in this case and hence the seizure of MO26 series could not be pinpointed with liability against the 5th accused, especially when there is no expert opinion on the above case. Therefore, according to me, the prosecution has miserably Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-12-:
failed to substantiate the allegation against the fifth accused. Even if the MO1 is proved to have the possession of the 5th accused, it cannot be said that the same was intended for the use of accused No.5 for the purpose of counterfeiting, especially when the main two parts of the machine were missing even at the time of the seizure. In the absence of any other incriminating evidence, no liability can be fastened against the fifth accused also. Therefore, according to me, the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in favour of the 5th accused is based upon materials and evidence and no interference is warranted.
11. With respect to the allegation against accused No.9, the prosecution relies on the oral testimony of PW17 and also the documentary evidence such as Exts.P11(a) and P12(a).
According to PW17, when he arrested Accused No.9 on 2.9.1981 from Karamana and on questioning the accused, he furnished Ext.P11(a) statement in pursuance of which Mos.10 to 22 items were seized by the Police from Mini Cottage. It is also the case of PW17 that besides Ext.P11(a) statement, Accused No.9 furnished Ext.P12(a) statement, and based upon that confession statement, and at the instance of Accused No.9, MOs.23 to 25 were seized from an unused well. The room from where the Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-13-:
contraband articles were seized was not locked and the trunk box was also not locked. It has also come out in evidence that the drawer of the table was also not locked. It is to be noted that as per evidence, there were other inmates in the house. The trial court also found that there was no mention regarding the silver ingot. The materials and evidence were correctly appreciated by the trial court and thus the trial court found that Exts.P11(a) and P12(a) did not indicate the authorship of the concealment. According to the prosecution evidence, in the can, nitric acid was kept but the smell of kerosene was present. After evaluation of the documentary evidence and the deposition of PW17, the court found that Ext.P4(b), the alleged statement was regarding the room on the northern side, but in the mahazar Ext.P4, it was on the side of the room, the recovery was effected. Thus, according to the court, all these discrepancies and the defects created doubt regarding the recovery. Thus, according to the court below, accused No.9 is entitled to get benefit of doubt. It was on the above ground, the trial court acquitted him. On appreciation of evidence on materials and the observation and finding arrived on by the trial court, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the court below in favour of Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-14-:
accused No.9.
12. In the light of the above discussion, especially with regard to the evidence and materials available on record and the reasoning assigned by the court below for the acquittal of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 9, I am of the view that the trial court came into such finding on a correct appreciation of evidence on record and by assigning proper and convincing reasons. No case is made out to show that the order of acquittal passed by the court below is tainted with perversity or illegality so as to interfere with such order of acquittal by exercising the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 9 is liable to be dismissed.
13. Based upon the evidence of prosecution advanced through PW12 and PW15 and Ext.P10, MOs.7 to 9, the trial court convicted Accused No.11 which according to the learned counsel for the appellant/A11 is liable to be set aside. According to PW12, he arrested accused Nos.10 and 11 and it was from them MOs.7 to 9 were seized. Learned counsel for the appellant/A11 submits that as indicated earlier, the order of conviction passed by the court below is against the materials and evidence on Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-15-:
record. I have perused the evidence of PW12. According to him, he is the person who registered Crime No.193/79 in the Chavara Police Station on 8.8.1979 against accused Nos.10 to 12. He had stated that on getting information, people of the locality had chased two persons possessing the forged notes and those persons had taken shelter in a house. He went to the spot and found Accused Nos.10 and 11 detained there. Thus, according to him, MO7 series, MO8 series MO9 newspaper were seized as per Ext.P10 mahazar. Ext.P9 is the F.I.R. When he was examined, he had stated that according to his memory, the notes were with Accused No.11. He had also stated that in Ext.P10, there is no mentioning as to from whom Mos. were seized. Regarding the seizure, the main evidence is that of the Police Officer viz., PW12. The prosecution has produced PW15 stated to be the attester to Ext.P10. According to him, he signed in Ext.P10 mahazar from the house of one Thankappan Pillai. He had stated that on seeing the gathering, he went to the spot and found PW12 and the counterfeit notes were seized from two persons inside the room. He is also not particular as to from whom the notes were seized. It is on the basis of the above evidence, the trial court found that accused No.11 was guilty of Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-16-:
the offence charged against him. On appreciation of the evidence on record, it appears to me that the allegation against accused No.11 is not proved beyond doubt. From the deposition of PW12, he went to the spot on receiving information to the effect that the people of the locality had chased two persons possessing forged notes and those persons had taken shelter in a house and consequently, he recovered and seized the contraband articles. Ext.P10 is the mahazar prepared on the spot for the seizure of the alleged counterfeit note. In Ext.P10, no name of the person or accused is mentioned as to from whose possession the counterfeit notes were seized. When he was examined in the court, he was not particular or specific that Mos.7 to 9 were seized from the possession of accused No.11. What he had stated is that to his memory, the goods were with accused No.11. As the documentary evidence is not sufficient to prove the allegation against A11 and though PW12 is an interested official witness, his oral testimony is also not specific and there is serious doubt about the person from whom the contrabands were seized. Even though there are such discrepancies, according to me, the prosecution case against accused No.11 is not liable to be thrown away on that ground, provided if there is any Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-17-:
independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of the official witness. In the present case, PW15 is an independent witness who is attester to Ext.P10. On going by the evidence of PW15, it can be seen that he is also not sure as to from whom Mos.1 to 9 were seized by the Police. Apart from that, it is to be noted that even though PW12 has deposed that he reached in the spot in pursuance of the opinion that people of the locality had chased two persons and those persons had taken shelter in the house, no person either chased or assembled there in the locality was not cited or examined to prove the prosecution case. Even according to PW15, he was residing one furlong away from the alleged place of seizure. He is not the person available on the spot right from the beginning of the incident. According to him, he heard that two persons had run away from the spot. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution why they failed to cite a witness from the locality itself and brought a person who was residing one furlong away from the spot where the alleged seizure was effected. PW15 deposed before the court below and according to the trial court, that white paper of 4 to 5 bundles were in their possession and he did not see as to from where it was taken. According to him, he is not remembering as to from Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-18-:
whose possession the contrabands were at that time. From the above, it can be seen that the evidence of PW15 is also containing contradictions and basic infirmities, which is not sufficient to lend assurance for the correctness of the evidence of PW12. Therefore, according to me, there is no sufficient evidence to implicate accused No.11 in the above offence. As pointed out earlier, the learned counsel invited my attention to a passage contained in para 24 of the trial court judgment and argued that even according to the trial court, there is no evidence before the court against Accused No.11 especially to prove in whose possession MOs.7 to 9 were kept and mahazar is silent about it and therefore, on the basis of evidence of Pws.12 and 15 and Ext.P10, there cannot be any liability fastened on Accused No.11. The above submission is either on the basis of mistaken notion or the learned counsel is misled on the basis of the said passage. The above passage is there in paragraph 24 of the judgment. But, on a reading of the entire paragraph including paragraph No.25, it can be seen that the above passage was given by the trial court as the defence version while discussing and appreciating the defence contentions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the observation or finding of the court below is in Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-19-:
favour of accused No.11.
14. Going by paragraph 30 of the judgment of the trial court, it appears to me that the trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence advanced by the prosecution against accused No.11 in its correct perspective. Ext.P10 is the only document shown as a contemporaneous one, but even in the same there is no mentioning from whom the notes were seized.
PW12, the Police Officer who claimed to have seized Mos.7 to 9 were not specific as to from whom the same were seized. So called independent witness also is not speaking as to from whom Mos.7 to 9 were seized and produced the same. Thus, it is crystal clear that there is absolutely no evidence to prove the prosecution case against A11. But the trial court, without appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective, especially without referring to the seriousness of the allegations against the accused and without discussing the materials in a perfunctory manner observed and found against the accused. Therefore,the order of conviction passed by the trial court against the appellant/accused No.11 is liable to be set aside.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the discussion, I am of the view that the finding arrived on by the Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-20-:
court below against the appellant/accused No.11 and the conviction and sentence imposed against him is incorrect and illegal and the same are set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. His bail bond is cancelled and Crl.A.No.429 of 1999 is allowed. Crl.A.No.2106 of 2005 filed by the State against the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 9 is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Thus, Crl.A.No.429 of 1999 is allowed and Crl.A.No.2106 of 2005 is dismissed.
V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-21-:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005
--------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T DATED: 12-11-2008 Crl.A.Nos.429/1999 & 2106/2005 :-22-: