Madras High Court
Karthick @ Kartheeswaran vs State Represented By on 5 October, 2018
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 05.10.2018
Reserved on
01.10.2018
Delivered on
05.10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.107 of 2008
, 112, 113 and 367 of 2008
Karthick @ Kartheeswaran
: Appellant/Accused No.1 in Crl.A.(MD)No.107/2008
1.S.Jeyapaul
2.J.Veera Durai Raj @ Durai
: Appellants/Accused Nos.2 and 4 in Crl.A.(MD)No.112/2008
Marimuthu @ Muthuram
: Appellant/Accused No.3 in Crl.A.(MD)No.113/2008
Santosh Kumar @ Kumar @ Sathish Kumar @ Krishnakumar
: Appellant/Accused No.5 in Crl.A.(MD)No.367/2008
Vs.
State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Sawyerpuram Police Station,
Tuticorin,
Crime No.89 of 2000,
Tuticorin District. : Respondent/Complainant in all Crl.As.
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure as against the judgment dated 21.02.2008, made in
S.C.No.173 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge -
cum- Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
!For Appellant/A-1 in : Mr.K.Prabhu
Crl.A.(MD)No.107/2008
For Appellant No.1/A-2 in : Mr.Anandha Padmanabhan,
Crl.A.(MD)No.112/2008 For Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Appellant No.2/A-4 in : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
Crl.A.(MD)No.112/2008
For Appellant/A-3 in : Mr.R.Anand
Crl.A.(MD)No.113/2008
For Appellant/A-5 in : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,
Crl.A.(MD)No.367/2008 For Mr.T.Jeen Joseph
^For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar,
in all Crl.As. Additional Public Prosecutor
:COMMON JUDGMENT
These Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21.02.2008, made in S.C.No.173 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:
2.1. On 09.08.2000 at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.16-Sub-Inspector of Police, Eral Police Station, received a secret information that Accused Nos.1 and 2 come to the place called 'Tom Tom Bridge' to exchange the counterfeit notes and informed the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The secret information was marked as Ex.P.19. On intimation from the Deputy Superintendent of Police in that regard, P.W.11-Sub-Inspector of Police, Sawyerpuram Police Station, informed the witnesses. In the meanwhile, a special team, consisting of P.W.9-Head Constable of Kurumbur Police Station, P.W.14-Head Constable of Alwarthirunagari Police Station, P.W.11-Sub-
Inspector of Police, Swayerpuram Police Station and P.W.16-Sub-Inspector of Police, Eral Police Station, was also formed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and along with the witnesses, they went to the place called 'Tom Tom bridge' at about 11.30 a.m. After sometime, Accused Nos.1 and 2 came there and while Accused No.1 tried to exchange one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were nabbed. Thereafter, when the police party wanted to search, Accused Nos.1 and 2 agreed to make a search by the police and consented for search under Exs.P.7 and 8 and on search, seized two 100 rupees counterfeit notes from Accused No.2 and one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes from Accused No.1 under Ex.P.5 in the presence of witnesses Vellaiya Nadar and Iyampillai Nadar and P.W.11. Thereafter, P.W.16 came to the Police Station along with the Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the seized notes and gave a special report Ex.P.6 to P.W.11, based on which, P.W.11 registered a case in Crime No.89 of 2000 under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code under Ex.P.9-printed First Information Report and sent First Information Report and Ex.P.6-special report to the Court and copy to the Inspector of Police.
2.2. P.W.17, Inspector of Police, Eral Police Station and in-charge of Sawyerpuram Police Station at the relevant point of time, on receipt of First Information Report, took up the case for investigation and recorded the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and also seized two sovereigns of chain from Accused No.2 under Ex.P.20. Pursuant to the confession of Accused No.2, on the same day, at about 09.30 p.m., he went to the house of Accused No.2 and seized one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes and 98 numbers of 100 rupees counterfeit notes from the trunk box shown by Accused No.2. He has seized the above notes under Ex.P.13. Thereafter, on 10.08.2000 at 02.30 a.m., he arrested Accused No.3 and recorded his confession. Pursuant to the same, he has also seized two bundles of 100 rupees notes. Thereafter, he arrested one accused Thangaraj @ Chinnappan (since deceased) at 04.30 a.m., and seized one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes from his house. Thereafter, at 07.15 a.m., he arrested Accused No.4 and recorded his confession, pursuant to which, he has recovered one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes under Mahazar and, thereafter, sent the accused and the seized notes to the Court and altered the crime under Sections 489-B and 489- C under alteration report Ex.P.23.
2.3. Thereafter, P.W.17 obtained warrant to effect search the office of the Accused No.2. Pursuant to the search warrant, he searched the premises, namely, Arumugamangalam Primary Co-operative Bank, where Accused No.2 was working, in the presence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 and recovered one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes from the dustbin beneath the table of Accused No.2 and sent the seized notes to the Court concerned under Form-95.
2.4. Subsequently, on 17.08.2000, at an early morning, 05.30 a.m., P.W.17 arrested Accused No.5 from the house belonged to one Mercyvilla and recorded his confession and recovered one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes from his right side pant packet. Pursuant to his confession, he has also seized one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes from the house of Accused No.5's sister, at the instance of Accused No.5. Thereafter, at 07.30 a.m., he arrested the absconding accused Jeyakumar and seized one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes from his right side pant packet and examined the witnesses and thereafter, handed over the case file to his successor.
2.5. P.W.12, Inspector of Police, gave a requisition to the Court [Ex.P.10] to send Material Objects to the Forensic Department.
2.6. P.W.15, the Assistant Director of Forensic Department has examined the counterfeit notes and issued Ex.P.18 stating that item Nos.1 to 1100 notes are the counterfeit notes. It is the evidence of P.W.15 that the light and shade effect and the micro details of Ashoka Pillar in the water mark window in the genuine note are different in the notes. Similarly, the security thread found in the genuine note is absent in the notes and also the security thread found in the genuine note is different in the notes. All the patterns in the background on the obverse and the reverse sides of the notes lack sharpness and microdetails. Colour combination and quality of printing are very poor in the notes. The floral pattern found on the top of the obverse side of the genuine note is different in the notes. The microdetails of 'RBI' seal and 'Ashoka Pillar' emblem found on the obverse side of the genuine note are absent in the notes. The secret water mark 'RBI' found in the genuine note is absent in the notes. Under UV-rays the paper of the genuine note does not exhibit fluorescence while the paper of the notes, items 1 to 1100 exhibit fluorescence. Unlike genuine note, the notes items 1 to 1100 are made of two single sheets. Unlike genuine note, repetition of serial number is found among the notes, items 1 to 1100 and opined that those notes are counterfeit notes.
2.7. P.W.18, in continuation of investigation, finally laid final report as against the accused under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2.8. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 120-B, 489-B and 489-C IPC against the Accused Nos.1 to 5. The Accused Nos.1 to 5 denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.18 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.23 and M.Os.1 to 15 were marked.
2.9. When the Trial Court examined the Accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. On the side of the Accused Nos.1 to 5, one Subbaiah was examined as D.W.1 and two documents were exhibited as Exs.D.1 and D.2.
2.10. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the Accused Nos.1 to 5 guilty under Section 489-C IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 5 have come up with the present Criminal Appeals.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals that the alleged seizure and recovery made by the prosecution is highly doubtful. Independent witnesses have not been examined to prove the alleged seizure and recovery and the witness to the alleged confession also turned hostile. In the First Information Report, it is the specific contention of the prosecution that from Accused No.2, one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes was seized and two 100 rupees counterfeit notes were seized from Accused No.1, whereas, the prosecution has projected during trial as if only from Accused No.2, two 100 rupees counterfeit notes were seized and from Accused No.1, one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes was seized. The secret information (Ex.P.19) shows that as if Accused Nos.1 and 2 were tried to exchange the counterfeit notes between 01.00 p.m., and 03.00 p.m., on 09.08.2000, whereas, the prosecution has projected a story that the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested at 12 noon by the police party. That itself creates serious doubt about the prosecution.
4. Adding further, it is contended that the alleged seizure from Accused Nos.3 to 5 was effected pursuant to the alleged discovery statement made by Accused Nos.1 and 2. But, the confession statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2 have not been marked and that will create serious doubt about the entire prosecution. It is the further contention that in none of the seizure mahazar, signatures of the accused were obtained by the police. This also creates serious doubt about the prosecution case.
5. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that the witnesses in Exs.P.7 and P.8, the consent letters given by Accused Nos.1 and 2 for alleged search, have not been examined. Accused No.2 was working as a Secretary of the Arumugamangalam Primary Co-operative Bank. The evidence of P.Ws.2,3,6 and 7 clearly show that a sweeper woman has been regularly coming to the Bank. Therefore, the alleged seizure of one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes from the dustbin beneath the table of Accused No.2 is highly doubtful.
6. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for Accused No.2 that Ex.D.1-leave letter given by the wife of Accused No.2 clearly shows that Accused No.2 was taken into custody by the police on 06.08.2000. Thereafter, leave was sanctioned. That itself clearly indicates that the alleged arrest and recovery of the notes on 09.08.2000 is highly doubtful and creates serious doubt about the entire prosecution.
7. The learned counsel would further contend that the Material Objects, namely the counterfeit currency notes were sent to Court with an inordinate delay and the letter to send the counterfeit currency notes to Forensic Lab was also given with an inordinate delay. All these facts create serious doubt about the entire prosecution version. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court finding the Accused Nos.1 to 5 guilty under Section 489-C is not based on proper appreciation of evidence.
8. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the currency notes were not sent to Forensic Department for examination, as per the Police Standing Order and hence, on that ground also, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.
9. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following judgments:
"(i)Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1982 Cri.L.J.32];
(ii) Madan Lal Sarma v. State [1990 Cri.L.J.215];
(iii) Re-Adham v. In Re: Adham [1992 0 CrLJ 2102];
(iv) Mohd. Yasin v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1997 0 ACR 359];
(v) Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh [AIR 2001 SC 3074];
(vi) S.Chandran v. State [2001(1) LW(Crl.) 230];
(vii) Pirthi Singh v. State of Punjab [2006 Cri.L.J.1393]; and
(viii) K.Harish v. State [2017(2) MLJ (Crl)125]."
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the evidence of the Investigating Officer and P.W.1 to P.W.5, P.Ws.8,9,10,11 and 14 clinchingly established the arrest of the Accused Nos.1 to 5 from 09.08.2000 till 17.08.2000. Only on the basis of the information furnished by Accused Nos.1 and 2, they were arrested on 09.08.2000, after recovery of counterfeit currency notes from them. The other accused were arrested and counterfeit currency notes were recovered not only from them but also from the house of sister of one of the accused. P.W.15, the Assistant Director of Forensic Department, in his opinion, has clearly held that all the notes were counterfeit notes and there was no explanation from the accused for possession of such huge quantity of counterfeit currency notes. Possessing such huge quantity itself clearly proves the fact that the Accused Nos.1 to 5 had knowledge about the counterfeit notes and had mens rea to possess such huge quantity only for the purpose of circulation. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellants guilty under Section 489-C IPC and the same does not warrant any interference.
11. In the light of the above submissions, now, it has to be analyzed whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt?
12. Admittedly, the investigation in this case has been commenced on the basis of secret information said to have been received by P.W.16. He has recorded such information in the form of writing under Ex.P.19 stating that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were trying to circulate the counterfeit currency notes near the place called 'Tom Tom Bridge ' on 09.08.2000 between 01.00 p.m. and 03.00 p.m. The above information was passed on to the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned. Thereafter, a special team, consisting of P.W.9-Head Constable of Kurumbur Police Station, P.W.14, Head Constable of Alwarthirunagari Police Station, P.W.11-Sub-Inspector of Police, Swayerpuram Police Station and P.W.16-Sub-Inspector of Police, Eral Police Station, was formed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, to nab the Accused Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of secret information. It is the evidence of the above witnesses that when they were watching to find out any movement of the person to circulate the counterfeit notes, at about 12 noon, when they were hiding near the place of occurrence, they found Accused Nos.1 and 2 tried to exchange the counterfeit notes. Immediately, P.W.16 arrested Accused Nos.1 and 2 and also made a search, after getting their consent, under Exs.P.7 and P.8 and one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit currency notes was seized from Accused No.1 and two 100 rupees counterfeit notes were recovered from Accused No.2. Thereafter, P.W.16 along with the police party brought the Accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized notes to the police station and gave Ex.P.6-Special report to the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.11), who registered the crime under Ex.P.9. Thereafter, P.W.17-Inspector of Police conducted investigation and examined Accused Nos.1 and 2 and recorded their confession statements.
13. It is the main contention of the appellants that one of the witnesses, namely P.W.9 had stated that the Inspector accompanied the police party and, therefore, he could not have been the Investigating Officer. In this regard, the evidence of P.Ws.9,10,11,14 and 16, when carefully seen, the Inspector of Police has not accompanied them at the relevant point of time and only the witnesses referred to above were part of the police team. Therefore, merely because one of the witnesses, namely P.W.9, in his evidence, stated that the Inspector also accompanied, it cannot be construed that the Inspector also accompanied the others at the time of arrest of Accused Nos.1 and 2. Mere truncated admission of P.W.9, cannot be taken as a gospel truth. On perusal of his evidence in entirety with the other police officials, who accompanied P.W.9, it makes very clear that the Inspector commenced investigation only after the First Information Report has been lodged and after arrest of Accused Nos.1 and 2.
14. It is curious to note that no motive whatsoever could be established against P.W.9,10,11,14 and 16 for false implication of the Accused Nos.1 to 5 in this case. There was no necessity for the police party to plant huge quantity of currency notes valued more than Rs.1,10,000/- in this case to foist a false case. Only on secret information, P.W.16 nabbed Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of witnesses. Only after commencement of investigation, after registering the First Information Report, P.W.17 examined Accused Nos.1 and 2, recorded their confession, which led to the discovery of facts, which were not within the knowledge of the police. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.17 makes it clear that on the same day at 09.30 p.m., Accused No.2 led the police party to his house and handed over one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes and 98 number of 100 rupees counterfeit notes, which were hidden in the trunk box. P.W.17 has seized the above fake currencies under Ex.P.13 in the presence of P.W.14 and P.W.16. The above seizure is not only spoken to by P.W.17 but also P.W.16 and P.W.14.
15. It is to be noted that the witnesses accompanied to the police party, namely Vellaiya Nadar and Kandasamy Thevar, were not examined before the Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel that non-examination of those witnesses vitiates the entire recovery and arrest. In this regard, it is to be noted that the Trial Court, in Paragraph No.13 of the judgment, has clearly found that those witnesses were already dead, in respect of which, Certificates were also filed by the prosecution. Therefore, merely because the witnesses signed in the seizure are not examined by the Court, when they are not alive, it is not universal rule that the evidence of the police officials cannot be relied upon. In a situation like this, when the persons involved in the offence in secrecy and tried to circulate counterfeit currency and they were arrested on suspicion, the Court cannot, in all eventuality, expect independent witnesses to support the arrest and recovery. The Investigating Officer's evidence inspires the confidence of the Court and there was no motive for false implication. There is no bar under law to act upon their testimonies.
16. Of course, in this case, though it is the specific case of the prosecution that the confession statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2, which led to the discovery of the facts, were not marked, it is to be noted that though it may be a lacuna on the part of the prosecution, the facts, as culled out from the evidence, reveal that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were caught red- handed and from A-1, one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes was seized at the time of his arrest and from A-2, two 100 rupees counterfeit notes were seized. They were also subjected to search without any objection. Recovery of the notes by the police party, at the first instance, from the Accused Nos.1 and 2, is certainly admissible and relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, mere non-exhibiting the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2 will not destroy the recovery.
17. It is also curious to note that immediately after investigation was commenced, after filing the First Information Report, pursuant to the statement said to have been given by the Accused No.2, who led the police party to the house of Accused No.2, at the first instance, one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes and 98 number of 100 rupees counterfeit notes were separately seized from the trunk box hidden in the house of Accused No.2. Though the prosecution has failed to produce the statement reduced in writing, such evidence of the Investigating Officer as to the seizure of the above currency notes cannot be discarded, merely on the ground that confessions are not marked. The purpose of recording the statement is only for the benefit of the accused and the prosecution. Therefore, mere non- exhibiting the above statement of Accused No.2, recovery will not be vitiated. The act of Accused No.2 leading to discovery of the fact as to fake currency notes hidden in the trunk box can be taken as evidence of conduct under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, mere non-filing of those confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2 will not vitiate the recovery.
18. It is curious to note that immediately after the arrest of Accused Nos.1 and 2, they were sent to judicial custody. The Investigating Officer has obtained search warrant from the Court concerned and conducted a search of the Office premises of Accused No.2. Admittedly, Accused No.2 was working as Secretary in the Arumugamangalam Primary Co-operative Bank and on 12.08.2000 with the orders of the Court, the Investigating Officer conducted a search in the Primary Co-operative Bank premises in the presence of P.W.1 to P.W.7. P.W.1 to P.W.7, they in unison voice, stated that on 12.08.2000 the police conducted search. P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, at the relevant point of time, accompanied the above search. P.W.2 was the cashier of the Co-operative Bank. P.W.3 was the President of the Bank. P.W.4 was the Branch Manager of Lakshmipuram Branch at the relevant point of time. P.W.5 was also working in the Bank. They have clearly spoken about the presence of police party and seizure of one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes from the dustbin beneath the table of Accused No.2. P.W.6 and P.W.7 were also workers in the bank. They have also supported the prosecution version. It is argued on the side of the appellants that a sweeper was regularly attending the office. Therefore, possibility of recovery of one bundle from the dustbin beneath Accused No.2 is improbable. Such contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the evidence of witnesses, particularly, P.W.2 cashier, in entirety read, shows that Secretary has a separate room and according to him, the sweeper used to come to their Office once in a week. The evidence of P.W.3 clearly indicates that Accused No.2 was absent for duty from 07.08.2000. Admittedly, the Secretary has a separate room. He was absent for duty from 07.08.2000. That being the situation, the sweeper entering into the separate room of the Secretary to clean everyday is highly improbable. It is common knowledge that whenever the officers are on leave, their rooms will always be closed and nobody will enter such room. Therefore, the contention of the appellants' counsel that the alleged seizure of one bundle from the dustbin beneath the table of Accused No.2 is improbable cannot be countenanced. P.W.2 to P.W.7, totally independent witnesses, have also supported the prosecution and seizure of the above amount.
19. It is the yet another contention made by the learned counsel appearing for Accused No.2 that Ex.D.1 leave letter sent by the wife of Accused No.2 makes it clear that Accused No.2 was taken into custody on 06.08.2000 and, therefore, the alleged arrest by the police on 09.08.2000 is highly doubtful. Ex.D.1 was produced through D.W.1. It is the contention of the prosecution that Ex.D1 was created subsequently. Though the leave was sanctioned by the President, it was done only in subsequent dates and not on 07.08.2000. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.3, the President of the Bank at the relevant point of time, when carefully seen, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he never visit the Society regularly. However, he has also admitted that he has sanctioned leave on 07.08.2000, but, he has not specifically stated that he has received Ex.D.1 letter on 07.08.2000. When the President is not visiting the Bank regularly, possibility of signing the documents putting a date, after passing orders, considering the date of receipt of the letters, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the contention of the defence that Accused No.2 was already taken into custody on 06.08.2000 cannot be true at all. If really, such things had happened, being the wife or family members, they would not have kept quiet. They would have taken steps at least to send telegram or complaint to the higher officials about the alleged illegal custody. Whereas remaining silent in that aspect and suddenly sending a letter, stated to be a leave letter and got it approved by the President, who is also not regularly visiting the Bank, it cannot be concluded that he was taken into custody on 06.08.2000. It is further to be noted that the evidence of eye witnesses clinchingly established the fact that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 09.08.2000.
20. As already discussed, there was no motive for the police to plant such huge quantity of counterfeit currency notes and the notes were recovered from the Accused Nos.1 to 5 in different places. When the evidence of eye witnesses substantiate the arrest and seizure, the subsequent document, namely Ex.D.1 cannot be given much weightage of. Even assuming that Accused No.2 was in illegal custody, it is well settled that the evidence collected illegally cannot be discarded, if such evidence is otherwise relevant and admissible as per the Act. Besides seizure of two 100 rupees counterfeit notes at the time of arrest, one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes and 98 number of 100 rupees currency notes were seized from A-2's house on the same day, for which, there was no explanation. Apart from that, one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes was also recovered from his office, which has been spoken to by P.W.1 to P.W.7, who were working with him, for which also, there was no explanation. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel with regard to the arrest and recovery as against Accused No.2 cannot be countenanced.
21. The Investigating Officer, after seizure of the counterfeit notes from Accused No.2's house, has arrested A-3 at 02.30 a.m., on 10.08.2000 and recorded the confession and also seized two bundles of 100 rupees fake notes. Thereafter, he has arrested one accused Thangaraj @ Chinnappan and recorded his confession and seized one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes under Mahazar. Thereafter, he has arrested A-4 and recorded his confession and seized one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes from his house. All the seizures were effected only on the basis of the information received from the respective accused. Such discovery can be taken as evidence of conduct of Accused No.4, besides discovery of fact under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. His confession also exhibited under Ex.P.17. Similarly, the confession of A-3 also exhibited under Ex.P.22. Thereafter, on 17.08.2000, the Investigating Officer has arrested Accused No.5 and recorded his confession and seized one bundle of 100 rupees counterfeit notes from his right side pant packet and thereafter, another bundle from his sister's house. Similarly, he has also seized one bundle of 100 rupees fake notes from other absconding accused. A'5 confession also exhibited as Ex.P.4. The seized notes were sent to the Court then and there under Form 95. Merely because the Inspector of Police under Ex.P.10 gave a requisition only on 28.06.2001 to the Court to send the notes to the Forensic Lab, the same cannot be construed that notes itself were belatedly sent to the Court. It is to be noted that what was requested by the Inspector of Police before the Court concerned under Ex.P.10, was to send the properties, which were received in the Court in Property Register No.57/2001, to Forensic Lab.
22. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that since Property Register number relates to 2001, the property should have been sent only at a later point of time. Such contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that assigning number, after verifying the details, takes sometime in the lower Court. Whereas Form 95 were sent then and there to the Court, which were clearly noted by the Trial Court. Therefore, merely on the basis of property register number, it cannot assume that the seized notes were sent only belatedly.
23. P.W.15, the Assistant Director of Forensic Department was examined. On threadbare analysis of counterfeit currency notes, P.W.15, after comparison, found that those notes are counterfeit currency notes. His report is also marked as Ex.P.18. Ex.P.18 filed through P.W.15 is self-explanatory and it is also spoken to by P.W.15.
24. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that P.W.15 is not competent to examine the counterfeit currency notes and only the Master, India Security Press, Nasik, alone is competent to examine the notes and give opinion.
25. In this regard, it is useful to extract PSO 578(4), which reads thus:
"In every instance Superintendents of Police, Superintendent, Railway Police and the Commissioner of Police, Madras City should in addition to sending a special report of the Criminal Investigation Department as required in Order No.501, send a report direct to the Currency Office, Reserve Bank of India, Madras, immediately on the appearance of the forged note, whether the forgery be new or old, in the form now sent to the Criminal Investigation Department. The report should contain full particulars regarding the series and general number denomination of the notes, date of appearance, place of detection with the crime number, Police Station and District, particulars of tenderer and whether the note has been forwarded to the Master, India Security Press, Nasik, for opinion and remarks, if any. The note seized should be sent to the Currency Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Madras, along with a report except when the note is required for investigation in which case the note should be forwarded to the Currency Officer, after the investigation is over, quoting the number and date of the original report sent to him. Great care must be paid to the preservation of the forged note and if any loss is reported the face value of the forged note will be recovered from the concerned by the Reserve Bank of India."
26. On careful perusal of the above, one can understand that what is required under Police Standing Order is to send a report to get the opinion from the Reserve Bank of India to find out whether the forgery is a new one or old. It is not as if to find out the forgery, all the fake currency notes should be sent to India Security Press. Even the Police Standing Order clearly indicates that all the fake currency notes are sent to the Criminal Investigation Department for examination. Coming to the case on hand, the seized counterfeit currency notes were analyzed by Expert and it was found that all the notes are counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, the contention of the appellants' counsel, in this regard, cannot be countenanced.
27. In the judgment reported in AIR 2001 SC 3074 [Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh], the Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted the accused on the ground that merely on the basis of evidence of shop-keeper and other witnesses that they were able to make out that currency note alleged to have been given to shop-keeper was fake, mens rea cannot be presumed and held that in the absence of any mens rea, mere possession is not an offence.
28. The facts and circumstances in the above case is clearly different from the case on hand. In the present case, all the accused were in possession of huge quantity of counterfeit notes, numbering about 1100. When huge quantity was seized from the Accused Nos.1 to 5 and they were found in possession of such huge counterfeit currency notes, such possession itself constitutes sufficient ground for drawing an inference that they had a sufficient knowledge and having reason to believe that notes are forged or counterfeit. When the Accused Nos.1 to 5 were found in possession of such huge number of counterfeit currency notes and those notes were safely kept in their house in the trunk box and on search from the house and also their pant packets, such large number of counterfeit notes were recovered from them, in the absence of any reasonable explanation, that itself gives rise to presumption that possession of such notes are only for the purpose of using the same as genuine or it may be used as genuine. Admittedly, a large number of counterfeit currency notes were seized from all the accused. The explanation by the Accused Nos.1 to 5 is also not convincing and all the witnesses have clearly spoken about the recovery and seizure. There was no necessity for the prosecution to take risk in planting such huge quantity of counterfeit notes to foist a false case against the Accused Nos.1 to 5. Thus, in view of the seizure of the huge quantity, the prosecution has clearly established the charge under Section 489-C IPC as against the Accused Nos.1 to 5. Hence, the judgment of the Trial Court does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
29. Using the forged currency and trying to circulate the same will certainly affect the very economy of the country and the act of the accused will certainly cause prejudicial to the interest of the nation and the Government and affect its development severely. If those persons are not convicted by a Court of law on the ground of technicalities and minor inconsistencies, there will be no end to curb the unscrupulous accused to indulge in such anti-nation activities. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court and in fact, the Trial Court has convicted the Accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 489-C IPC and sentenced them to undergo only rigorous imprisonment for five years and the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
30. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 5, by Judgment dated 21.02.2008, made in S.C.No.173 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District, are, hereby, confirmed. The Bail bond executed by the appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 5, if any, shall stand cancelled. The learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District, is directed to secure the custody of the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5 to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5 is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge -cum-
Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sawyerpuram Police Station, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.