Madras High Court
Senthilnathan vs The State Represented By on 4 February, 2020
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 04.11.2019
Pronounced on : 04.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2009
Senthilnathan ... Appellant/Accused
versus
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
CBCID Counterfeit Currency Wing,
Madurai ... Respondent/Complainant
(Crime No.2 of 2002)
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, against the Judgment dated 30.06.2009, made in S.C.No.81 of 2008
on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court No.III), Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.(MD)No.170 of 209
1. A.Ajmeer Kaja
2. Sahul Hameed ... Appellants / Accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
versus
1/23
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
CBCID Counterfeit Currency Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.2 of 2002) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, against the Judgment dated 30.06.2009, made in S.C.No.71 of 2008
on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court No.III), Madurai.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Kanagajaran
For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.(MD)No.197 of 2009
Ilango ... Appellant / Accused
versus
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
CBCID Counterfeit Currency Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.2 of 2002) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, against the Judgment dated 30.06.2009, made in S.C.No.10 of 2008
on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court No.III), Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/23
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009
For Appellant : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.(MD)No.203 of 2009
Radhakrishnan ... Appellant/Accused
versus
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
CBCID Counterfeit Currency Wing,
Madurai
(Crime No.2 of 2002) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, against the Judgment dated 30.06.2009, made in S.C.No.11 of 2008
on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court No.III), Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed as against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, by a common Judgment, dated 30.06.2009 in S.C.Nos.10, 11, 71, 72, 81 and 82 of 2008, by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai. Since these appeals are arising out of the common Judgment dated 30.06.2009 made in S.C.Nos.10, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 11, 71, 72, 81 and 82 of 2008, these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by way this common Judgment.
2. The appellants were tried for the offence as mentioned below before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai.
Appellant/Accused Section of Law SC No.
Senthilnathan/appellant 489-B & 489-C IPC S.C.No.81 of 2008
in Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of
2009
A.Ajmeer Kaja/appellant 489-B, 489-C & 489-D S.C.No.71 of 2008 No.1 in Crl.A.(MD)No. IPC 170 of 2009 Shahul Hameed / 489-B & 489-C IPC S.C.No.72 of 2008 appellant No.2 in Crl.A. (MD)No.170 of 2009 Ilango/appellant in 489-B & 489-C IPC S.C.No.10 of 2008 Crl.A.(MD)No.197 of 2009 Radhakrishnan/ 489-A, 489-B, 489-C & S.C.No.11 of 2008 appellant in Crl.A. 489-D IPC (MD)No.203 of 2009 and the trial Court by Judgment dated 30.06.2009 convicted the appellants and sentenced them as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 Appellant / Accused Section of Law Sentence of Imprisonment Senthilnathan / appellant 489-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of for four years 2009 489-C IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year, fine Rs.
1,000/-, in default six
months rigorous
imprisonment
A.Ajmeer Kaja/appellant 489-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment
No.1 in Crl.A.(MD)No. for four years
170 of 2009 489-C IPC Rigorous imprisonment
for one year
489-D IPC Rigorous imprisonment
for six months, Rs.
1,000/- fine, in default,
six months rigorous
imprisonment
Shahul Hameed / 489-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment
appellant No.2 in Crl.A. for four years
(MD)No.170 of 2009 489-C IPC Rigorous imprisonment
for one year, Rs.1,000/-
fine, in default, six
months rigorous
imprisonment
Ilango / appellant in 489-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment
Crl.A.(MD)No.197 of for four years
2009 489-C IPC Rigorous imprisonment
for one year, Rs.1,000/-
fine, in default, six
months rigorous
imprisonment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/23
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009
Radhakrishnan/appellant 489-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment
in Crl.A.(MD)No.203 of for Ten years
2009 489-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment
for four years
489-C IPC Rigorous imprisonment
for one year, Rs.1,000/-
fine, in default, six
months rigorous
imprisonment
489-D IPC Acquitted from the
charge
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:
(i) The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Counterfeit currency wing, Madurai (PW6), on reliable information received by him, on 10.10.2002, went to Thiruparankundram Railway Station along with his team and Village Administrative Officer of Thiruparankundram, Mohansundaram and the Village Assistant, Balasubramanian. They have examined the accused Illango, Babu @ Babulal and one Senthilnathan and found that they were in possession of counterfeit currency notes. P.W.6 arrested those accused for possession of counterfeit currency notes on 10.10.2002 at 12.00 noon and recorded the confession statement of the accused Ilango (Ex.P1). The accused Ilango confessed that he along with other two accused are circulating counterfeit currency notes, which they have received from one Radhakrishnan of Kerala.
Pursuant to the confession statement, P.W.6 has also recovered 50 numbers of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/-, 100 numbers of counterfeit currency notes of Rs.50/- from him in the presence of P.W.1-Mohanasundaram, the Village Administrative Officer and his Village Assistant in Ex.P2. The accused Babu @ Babulal has also produced 30 numbers of counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- and 20 numbers of counterfeit currency notes of Rs.20/- at around 2.15 p.m. P.W.6 has recovered 10 numbers of counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- and 40 numbers of counterfeit currency notes of Rs.50/- from Senthilnathan around 2.45 p.m. After the recovery, P.W.6 returned to the CBCID Office and registered a case in Madurai District CBCID Crime No.2 of 2002 as against the accused Illango, Babu @ Babulal, Senthilnathan and one Radhakrishnan, from whom these accused have collected these counterfeit currency notes. The printed FIR under Ex.P18 was registered for the offence under Section 489-B and 489-C of Indian Penal Code at 4.30 p.m. He produced the First Information Report and the accused before the concerned Judicial Magistrate along with the counterfeit currency notes in Form-95.
(ii) P.W.6 got the details that the accused Radhakrishnan, who supplied the counterfeit currency notes to the other accused, is arrested by CBCID counterfeit currency Wing, Chennai, in Cr.No.59 of 2001 on the file of the Salem Asthampatti Police Station and he is in judicial custody at Central Prison, Salem in the said case. Pursuant to this information, he made a request https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 before the concerned Judicial Magistrate No.7, Madurai, on 02.01.2003, to issue PT warrant and accordingly, the accused was also produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court in this Crime Number on 06.01.2003. P.W.6 took police custody of the accused Radhakrishnan from 06.01.2003 to 09.01.2003 and examined him. The accused Radhakrishnan gave a confession statement to P.W.6 in the presence of Madurai B.B.Kulam Village Administrative Officer Gurunathan (PW2) and his Village Assistant Arul. He recorded the confession statement of the accused Radhakrishnan on 07.01.2003 at 9.00 a.m. Pursuant to his confession Statement, he also produced 20 numbers of counterfeit currency notes of Rs.50/- from his room at K.Pudur. The accused Radhakrishnan has also stated about the involvement of three other accused, namely, one Ajmeerkhan, Shahul Hameed and K.Hajamohaideen. Based on the confession statement, P.W.6 arrested Ajmeerkhan on 08.01.2003 at about 12.45 noon in the presence of P.W.2 Gurunathan and the Village Assistant. The accused Ajmeerkhan also gave a confession statement and produced 10 numbers of Rs.50/- counterfeit currency notes and a colour xerox machine, which were recovered in Athakashi under Ex.P7. On the same day, P.W.6 also arrested the other accused one Shahul Hammed around 2.30 p.m. and recovered 10 numbers of Rs.50/- counterfeit currencies from him in the presence of P.W.2 Gurunathan and the Village Assistant under Ex.P9. He also arrested one Khaja Mohideen from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 Thirumangalam around 5.45 p.m. and recovered 15 numbers of Rs.50/- counterfeit currency notes under a cover of mahazar in Ex.P11. He produced the accused before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court and the recovered properties were produced in Form-95. P.W.6 also made a request in Ex.P12 for sending the recovered currency notes for expert opinion. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.7, Madurai, forwarded the recovered currency notes to the India Security Press, Nashik, Maharashtra. The General Manager, India Security Press, Nashik, after analysing the currency notes, noted down certain differences and gave his information that the suspected notes of Rs. 100/- denominations are counterfeit notes, by his report dated 13.03.2002 which is marked as Ex.P14. The suspected notes of Rs.50/- denomination was examined separately and it was also declared as counterfeit. The xerox machine, which was recovered, was also sent for examination to the Forensic Sciences Department and the Scientific Expert of the Forensic Sciences Department gave her opinion that the xerox machine is in working condition in the copier/scanner mode and by using the same, any document, including, currency notes can be scanned and their copies (xerox) can be prepared in colour.
(iii) Based on the materials collected, the Investigating Officer (P.W.7) filed his final report as against the appellants as stated supra, on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 31.08.2004 before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and the same were taken on file in PRC Nos.111/04, 114/04, 115/04, 116/04, 113/04 and 117/04. The cases were committed to the Court of Sessions and taken on file in S.C.Nos.10 of 2008 (Ilango), 11 of 2008 (Radhakrishnan), 71 of 2008 (Ajmir Kaja), 72 of 2008 (Shahul Hameed), 81 of 2008 (Senthilnathan) and 82 of 2008 (Kaja Maideen).
(iv) During trial, 7 witnesses have been examined and 25 documents were marked and 9 material objects were produced on the side of the prosecution.
(v) The available prosecution evidence are as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is the then Village Administrative Officer and he is the witness to the arrest of the accused Ilango, Senthilnathan and in his presence, M.Os.1 to 4 have been recovered under Exs.P2 and P3.
(b) P.W.2 is the then Village Administrative Officer of Bibikulam.
In his presence, confession statement (Ex.P4) of the accused was recorded and M.O.5 was recovered. He is also a witness to the arrest of the accused Ajmeer Kaja, Shahul Hameed and Kaja Mohideen and in his presence, M.Os.6, 7 and 9 were recovered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009
(c) P.W.3 is the house owner of Ajmeer Kaja. He did not support the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile witness.
(d) P.W.4 is the then Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and she speaks about the sending of MOs to analysis and the receipt of Analysis report (Ex.P1) from the Lab.
(e) P.W.5 is the then Head Constable attached to the respondent Police. He accompanied the Inspector of Police, during the raid and he speaks about the arrest of the accused on 10.10.2002 and recovery of material objects.
(f) P.W.6 is the then Inspector of Police, CBCID-Counterfeit Currency Wing, Madurai. He speaks about the raid conducted by his team, arrest of the accused, recovery of MOs, registering of FIR and about the preliminary investigation conducted by him.
(g) P.W.7 is the then Inspector of Police, CBCID-Counterfeit Currency Wing, Madurai, who conducted the further investigation in this case and filed the final reports.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009
(vi) On the application filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 223(a) of Cr.P.C, the trial Court tried the cases jointly and passed the common Judgment on 30.06.2009, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra and as against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the accused have filed the present appeals.
4. Heard Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165 and 197 and 203 of 2009 and Mr.S.Kanagarajan, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A.(MD)No.170 of 2009 and Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
5. This Court, by order dated 13.09.2019 appointed Mr.Jameel Arasu, as Legal Aid Counsel to proceed with the appeals in Crl.A.(MD)Nos. 165, 197 and 203 of 2009, since the counsel on record filed a memo dated 13.09.2019 withdrawing his appearance in the above appeals.
6. The sum and substance of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals are that these appellants are innocent and there is no bad antecedent of similar offence against them. The accused are arrested based on the inadmissible confession statement of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 co-accused. It is further submitted that there are so many discrepancies with regard to the arrest and recovery. There is no signature of the Investigating Officer in Form 95 and the dates are overwritten. Moreover, in Ex.P22, it has been mentioned that the counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the appellants in front of their house, but, no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Further, the recovery of xerox machine (Ex.P23) is a questionable one. The Investigating Officer signed in Form 95 (Ex.P23) on 29.04.2003, but the property was sent to the Court on 08.01.2003. In this regard, the prosecution has given an explanation that the Judicial Magistrate returned the Form-95, i.e. Ex.P23 on 08.01.2003 and asked the Investigating Officer to produce the same before the Court later, which is an unacceptable one. There is no endorsement made by the Judicial Magistrate in the the said exhibit. Further, in Ex.P15, no date was found in the petition filed by the prosecution to forward the properties for Expert's examination. In Exs.P6 and P8 – Confession statement of Ajmeer Khaja and Shahul Hameed, the date of recording of the statement was overwritten in all the columns, including the official witnesses Village Administrative Officer. In Ex.P12, PR number has not been mentioned in the petition filed by the Investigating Officer. When there are so many discrepancies in the above said documents, the case of the prosecution cannot be sustained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009
7. He further submitted that though the counterfeit currency notes were recovered and sent for examination, the concerned officer, who examined the currency notes, has not been examined as a witness, which would affect the entire prosecution case. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mamutti vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1979 AIR SC 1705. It is further submitted that the appellants were arrested and the materials were also recovered pursuant to this confession statement, but, the crime number has not been mentioned in Ex.P7-recovery mahazar, which was prepared on 08.01.2003. In support of the contention, the learned counsel has also relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2011 (2) SCC 676, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
“23. It is also required to note that all the eyewitnesses had stated in their evidence that lantern was burning in the verandah and Kaldhari (P.W.1), Sheo Kumar (P.W.2) and Sonai (P.W.3) were having torchlights in their hands and only with the help of the lantern and the torchlights they could recognise and identify the assailants. The lantern and the torchlights though were alleged to have been seized vide seizure mahazar, Exts. Ka.2 and Ka.3 respectively, were not produced in the Court. The seizure memos, Exts. Ka.2 and Ka.3 did not contain the crime number and other recovery particulars. In the circumstances, it becomes highly doubtful as to whether those torchlights and lantern were actually seized during the course of investigation by the investigating officer. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 The investigating officer (P.W.8) did not explain as to why the crime number was not noted on Exts. Ka.2 and Ka.3 and as to why the material objects if at all seized, were not produced in the court.”
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that with regard to the overwriting in the date is concerned, the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.2), in his evidence, he specifically stated that in his presence, confession statement was recorded and recovery was made on 08.01.2003. Therefore, the inadvertent overwritting committed by P.W.6 cannot lead to the conclusion that the recovery was made on 07.01.2003 in the absence of Village Administrative Officer (P.W.2). Further, the accused signature was in the documents with date as 08.01.2003.
9. So far as the sending of xerox machine with the delay is concerned, the Form-95 with Xerox Machine was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 09.01.2003 with the signature of the accused dated 08.01.2003. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate asked to produce the same later and hence, Form 95 with Xerox Machine was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 29.04.2003. In this regard, the explanation given by the investigation officer is clear and the same cannot be said to be unacceptable. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009
10. With regard to the non-examination of expert is concerned, when the report (Ex.P14) was marked before the Court as Exhibit, examination of expert is not necessary as per Section 293 Cr.P.C. Further, there was no objection on the side of the accused in this regard.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the non- mentioning of crime numbers in the Athaksi does not affect the case of the prosecution. Further, the witnesses to the recovery have clearly spoken about the recovery. In the confession statements of Radhakrishnan, Ajmeer Khaja and Shahul Hameed, crime numbers are clearly mentioned and therefore, inadvertent omission of crime number is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the recovery of counterfeit currencies from the possession of the accused has been proved in this case. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
12. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the available records.
13. The Inspector of Police (P.W.6) arrested the accused Ilango, Senthilnathan and Babu @ Babulal on 10.10.2002 in the presence of P.W.1 and also recovered the counterfeit currencies from them under a cover of mahazar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 Ex.P2, in the presence of P.W.1. The accused Ilango has stated about the role of Radhakrishnan, from whom, they have received those counterfeit currency notes and based on that, the case was originally registered as against Ilango, Babu @ Babulal, Senthilnathan and Radhakrishnan. P.W.6 found that the accused Radhakrishnan is in judicial custody in connection with the case in Cr.No.59 of 2001 on the file of the Salem Asthampatti Police Station and taken out an application for issuing PT warrant and also remanded the accused Radhakrishnan in this case. The accused Radhakrishnan was also taken into the police custody and during the police custody, the accused Radhakrishnan gave a confession statement and pursuant to his confession statement, P.W.6 recovered 20 numbers of Rs.50/- counterfeit currency notes in the presence of P.W.2 under Ex.P5. The accused Radhakrishnan has also stated about the involvement of the other three accused namely Ajmeer Kaja, Shahul Hameed and Kaja Maideen and accordingly, those accused were also arrested in the presence of P.W.2-Gurunathan, Villae Administrative officer. Pursuant to the confession statement of the accused Ajmeer Kaja, the Inspector of Police has recovered 10 numbers of Rs.50/- counterfeit currency notes, a colour xerox machine and an adopter under a cover of mahazar in Ex.P7 on 08.01.2003. From the accused Shahul Hameed, P.W.6 also recovered 10 numbers of Rs.50/- counterfeit currency notes under a cover of Mahazar in Ex.P9. From the accused Kaja Maideen, P.W.6 recovered 15 numbers of Rs.50/- counterfeit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 currency notes under a cover of mahazar in Ex.P11 in the presence of P.W.2- Gurunathan, Village Administrative Officer of B.B.Kulam, Madurai and the Village Assistant.
14. All the counterfeit currency notes were produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate in Form-95 and a request was also made to send the counterfeit currency notes for expert opinion. Based on the request, the recovered counterfeit currencies were also sent to the General Manager, Currency Note Press, Nashik, Maharashtra, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, in Ex.P13 and the General Manager of India Security Press, Nashik, gave his opinion in Ex.P14 that the subjected notes of Rs.100/- denomination and Rs.50/- denomination are counterfeit. Though the General Manager of the India Security Press was not examined, during the course of trial, the report of the General Manager, India Security Press, Nashik, was marked as Ex.P14 and the report reveals that the counterfeit currencies received by them in connection with Crime No.2 of 2002 on the file of the CBCID Madurai District from the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Madurai in D.No.378 dated 04.03.2003 in a sealed cover, through Mr.N.Murugesan, Grade-I Police Constable are counterfeit. The Expert has analyzed the currencies on the following categories, such as, “(i) Cut size of the notes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009
(ii) Quality of the paper
(iii) Main Watermark and other Watermarks
(iv) Security Thread
(v) Paper Thickness
(vi) Printing Colours
(vii) Colour Registration
(viii) Numbering
(ix) Quality of printing The Expert also gave his report as follows:
(i) Cut size of the Note :Length correct Width Correct
(ii) Paper : Single
(iii) Main Watermark : Absent Other Watermarks : Absent
(iv)Secruity Thread : Limited
(v) Paper Thickness : Approx. same as that of genuine note
(vi) Printing Colours : Ink shades do not match with the shades of genuine note & colours used are easily water soluble.
(vii) Colour Registration: Front & Back register is not correct.
(viii) Numbering : The numbering style does not match with style of genuine note.
(ix) Quality of printing: Very poor Conclusion : The referred suspected notes of Rs.100/- Denomination were received in sealed condition by hand through N.Murugesan Gr.I PC 1964 and are returned in sealed condition after examination.
These referred suspected notes of Rs.100/- denomination https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis are COUNTERFEIT NOTES.
19/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 ON FRONT: The body printing lacks sharpness. The tint printing is done with water soluble ink and is in the form of dots and not in line pattern as per the genuine note design. The word “Mahatma Gandhi” are unsharp and not easily readable. The rosette design in the Centre of the notes lacks sharpness and is broken. The R.B.I. seal lacks sharpness and fine details are crude.
ON BACKS: The tint design details lacks sharpness and printing ink colours do not match with genuine note.
15. The Expert has examined the currencies which were referred by the concerned Judicial Magistrate in a sealed cover in Crime No.2 of 2002 and has analysed in detail with regard to the qualities and the report Ex.P14 was made in detail by analyzing the currencies on various parameters and after the examination, the currencies were returned in sealed cover. The accused had not suggested that the Expert has not examined the currencies which were recovered from them and has not taken any steps to examine the Expert. The India Security Press is doing an important assignment of printing currencies for the Government and therefore, the non-examination of the General Manager, who issued the report Ex.P14, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
16. The accused were arrested pursuant to the information received by P.W.6 in the presence of the Village Administrative Officers P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the counterfeit currencies were recovered from the accused under a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 cover of mahazar and the same were also duly produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate with a request to forward the same for expert opinion to the India Security Press. Accordingly, the counterfeit currencies which were recovered from the accused were also referred to the Indian Security Press and the General Manager of India Security Press in his report dated 13.03.2002 has also given a finding after analyzing the currencies on various parameters that the currencies are counterfeit notes. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain these appeals and to interfere with the impugned Judgment of conviction and Sentence.
17. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are coolie workers and they are the only breadwinner of their respective families and since they have already undergone six months imprisonment, they requested to show some leniency on them in the matter of sentence.
18. Considering the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to show any leniency on the appellants/accused.
19. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. The trial Court is directed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 to secure the appellants and confine them in prison, so as to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand terminated. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
04.02.2020 ogy Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes/ No To The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/23 Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy Pre-delivery Judgments in Crl.A.(MD)Nos.165, 170, 197 and 203 of 2009 04.02.2020 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/23