Karnataka High Court
Mapillai K H Sulaiman vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1652/2007 C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1726/2007
CRL.A.No.1652/2007
BETWEEN:
1. MAPILLAI K H SULAIMAN
S/O HYDROS, 45 YEARS,
COOLIE, R/AT ANEPARE
COFFEE ESTATE LINE
KUTTA VILLAGE.
2. M N VENU
S/O MADHAVAN, 50 YEARS
POOJEKALLU, KUTTA VILLAGE
3. C SUBBER
S/O AHAMED KUTTY, 39 YEARS, DRIVER
NAZIM MANZIL, KEELALOOR VILLAGE
PANCHAYATH, YEDEYANNUR VILLAGE
MATTANOOR TALUK, KANNANOOR DISTRICT
KERALA STATE
4. K P AZEEZ
S/O LATE MOHAMMED, 44 YEARS
KOTTARTHIL HOUSE
YEDEYANNUR VILLAGE
KEELALOOR VILLAGE PANCHAYAT
MATTANOOR TALUK, KANNANOOR DISTRICT
KERALA STATE
5. E K AZEEZ
S/O MAMUTI, 37 YEARS
2K HOUSE, PALUR PALLI
MATTANOOR TALUK ... APPELLANTS
2
(BY SRI N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
C.A.SQUAD, C.O.D., BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2007 IN S.C.NO.48/2000, ON
THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI,
CONVICTING APPELLANTS-ACCUSED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 489-B, 489-C AND 120-B IPC & ETC.
CRL.A.No.1726/2007
BETWEEN:
NAYAR K VINODH
S/O KUNHIRAMAN, 39 YEARS
CHAKKEKEKAL, MAKA POST
ANJARANAKANDI, KANNANOOR DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
C A SQUAD, C.O.D., BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) CR.P.C.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2007 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN
S.C.NO.48/2000, CONVICTING APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 489-B, 489-C AND
120-B IPC AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The appellants in Crl.A 1652/2007 were arrayed as accused 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in S.C.No.48/2000 and appellant in Crl.A 1726/2007 was arrayed as accused no.3 in S.C.No.48/2000. They were tried and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 489B, 489C & 120-B IPC. Therefore, they are before this court.
2. On 13.02.2014, this court considering the death certificate of accused No.5-K.P.Azeez (appellant no.4 in Crl.A 1652/2007) and report submitted by learned Government Advocate recorded abatement of Crl.A.No.1652/2007 as it relates to accused No.5 namely K.P.Azeez.
3. I have heard Sri N.Ravindranath Kamath, learned counsel for accused and Sri B.Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP for State.
4. The accused were tried for the following charges/ additional charge:
4
" I, Sri D.A.Lathe, B.A.LL.B.(Sp.), Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, Kodagu, Madikeri, do hereby charge you as follows:-
1. Mapillai K H Sulaiman, S/o Hydros, 38 Years Coolie, R/o Anepare Coffee Estate Line Poojekallu, Kutta Village.
2. M N Venu, S/o Madhavan, 43 Years Poojekallu, Kutta Village.
3. Nayar K Vinodh, S/o Kunhiraman, 33 Years Chakkekekal, Maka Post, Anjaranakandi Kannanoor District, Kerala State
4. C Subher, S/o Ahamod Kutty, 32 Years, Driver Nazim Manzil, Keelaloor Village Panchayath Yedeyannur Village, Kannanoor District Mattanoor Taluk, Kerala State.
5. K P Azeez, S/o Late Mohammed, 37 Years Kottarthil House, Yedeyenur Village Keelaloor Village Panchayath, Mattanoor Taluk Kannanoor District, Kerala State.
6. K Azeez, S/o Mamuti, 30 Years 2K House, Palur Palli, Mattanoor Taluk Kannanoor District, Kerala State.
That you accused nos.1 to 6 on 26.7.98 at Poojekal village, when CW-1/M.Chandra sold to CW-2/P.Muthu the arrack and to which CW-2 gave to CW-1 one counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/- and on enquiry CW-2/P.Muthu disclosed that the accused no.1 gave the said counterfeit currency note to him and that you accused no.1 knowing the same to be the counterfeit possessed 2 counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/- you the accused no.2 having 10 counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/-, you accused no.3 having 15 counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/- you accused no.4 having 10 counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/- and you accused no.5 having 100 counterfeit currency note of 5 Rs.100/- each and one currency note of Rs.500/- and accused no.6 having 8 counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/- each knowing the same to be the counterfeit and to which to make use of the same in the day to day transaction and that you all thereby committed an offence p/u/s.489(B) of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the fast track court, Madikeri.
2. Secondly that you all accused nos.1 to 6 on 26.7.98 at Poojekallu Village, had in your possession the forgery counterfeit currency notes as follows:-
Accused no.1 .. 2 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- Accused no.2 .. 10 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- Accused no.3 .. 15 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- Accused no.4 .. 10 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- Accused no.5 .. 100 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/-
each and one currency note of Rs.500/-
Accused no.6 .. 8 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/-
each to which to make use of the same, in day to day transaction knowing the same to be the counterfeit intending to use the same as genuine and that you all thereby committed an offence p/u/s.489(C) of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Fast Track Court, Madikeri.
And I hereby direct you be tried by this court, on the said charges"
"ADDITIONAL CHARGE I, Sri R.Venkatesh, B.Sc., LL.B., Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, hereby charge you- A.1 Mapillai K H Sulaiman S/o Hydros, 38 Years Coolie, R/o Anepare Coffee Estate Line Poojekallu, Kutta Village.6
A.2 M N Venu S/o Madhavan, 43 Years Poojekallu, Kutta Village.
A.3 Nayar K Vinodh S/o Kunhiraman, 33 Years Chakkekekal, Maka Post Anjaranakandi, Kannanoor District, Kerala State A.4 C Subher S/o Ahamed Kutty, 32 Years, Driver Nazim Manzil, Keelaloor Village Panchayath, Yedeyannur Village Kannanoor District, Mattanoor Taluk Kerala State.
A.4 K P Azeez S/o Late Mohammed, 37 Years Kottarthil House, Yedeyenur Village Keelaloor Village Panchayath Mattanoor Taluk, Kannanoor District Kerala State.
A.5 K Azeez S/o Mamuti, 30 Years 2K House, Palur Palli Mattanoor Taluk, Kannanoor District Kerala State.
as follows;
That you A.1 to A.6 on 26.7.1998 at Poojekal Village agreed to do or cause to be done an illegal act viz., distribution of counterfeit currency notes among yourself for circulation in public and circulated to CW.2 and you A.1 to A.6 were also in possession of counterfeit currency notes for the purpose of circulation and thereby committed an offence U/Sec.120(B) IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the said charge.7
5. It is the case of prosecution that accused no.1-Mapillai K.H.Sulaiman was running a Tea Stall in Poojekallu at Kutta village. Accused no.2-M.N.Venu was also a resident of Poojekallu in Kutta village; Accused no.3-Nayar K.Vinodh hails from Chakkekekal village of Kannanoor District, Kerala State; Accused no.4-C.Subher hails from Yedeyanur village, Kannanoor District, Kerala State; Accused no.6-E.K.Azeez hails from Mattanoor Taluk, Kannanoor District, Kerala State.
6. Sometime prior to 26.07.1998, accused no.1 to 6 had entered into criminal conspiracy to circulate counterfeit currency notes. In furtherance of such conspiracy, they had distributed among themselves counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination. On 26.07.1998, accused no.1- Mapillai K.H.Sulaiman had engaged PW.2-Boja, PW.3- Paniyeravara Muthu, PW.4-Paniyeravara Baby and CW.5- Bera (not examined before the trial court) for plucking sweet potatoes in the land of one Prakash near Poojekallu of Kutta village. After completing their work, accused no.1 gave one currency note of Rs.100/- denomination to each of the 8 aforestated persons and asked them to retain Rs.20/- towards wages and return Rs.80/- to PW.1 on the following day. PW's.1 to 4 had gone to the arrack shop of PW.1 situate at a short distance from the Tea Stall of accused no.1. PW.2 purchased one packet of arrack worth Rs.10/-. PW.1 after receiving the currency note of Rs.100/- denomination from PW's.2, 4 and CW.5-Bera returned them a sum of Rs.90/- each. When PW.3-Muthu gave currency note of Rs.100/- to PW.1, he developed suspicion and examined the note in the petromax light and found that the note did not have security thread and water mark. Therefore, he suspected it to be counterfeit currency note. He also verified the cash box and found three counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination in the cash box. Therefore, he lodged the first information in Kutta Police Station, on the basis of which crime was registered. When the first information was lodged, PW.1 handed over 4 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination which he had received from the aforestated witnesses. During investigation, it was revealed that accused no.2 was also involved in the offence. The investigation 9 officer took PW.1 and other witnesses to the house of accused no.1-Suleman and found that he was in possession of two counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination. The investigation officer learnt about the involvement of other accused. The investigation officer and panch witnesses visited the house of accused no.2-M.N.Venu and seized counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination.
7. The investigation officer (PW.10-M.B.Nanjappa-PSI) and PW.7-M.Achutha (ASI) and other police personnel along with panch witnesses proceeded to Kerala and searched the houses of accused no.3, 4 and 6 and seized 50 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from the possession of accused no.3; 10 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from the possession of accused no.4 and 8 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from accused no.6. The seized currency notes were sent to Government of India Bank Note Press, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh and the opinion of Expert was received as per Ex.P17. The seized currency notes in these cases are counterfeit currency notes.10
The reasons assigned in the opinion are as follows:
1) Imitated Gandhi portrait was found on the water mark
2) Security thread was absent
3) Texture as per not genuine notes
4) The printing colour, shade and design do not match with the genuine notes.
5) The printing of colour notes and thickness do not match with the genuine currency notes of Rs.100/-
denomination.
6) The quality of notes was poor and unsharp
7) Some of the currency notes bear same numbers.
8. It is established from evidence on record that PW's.2 to 4 and CW.5-Bera (not examined before the court) had been engaged by accused no.1 to pluck sweet potatoes in the land of one Prakash during the afternoon 26.07.1998. After completion of work, accused no.1 gave currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination to each of them (in all 4 currency notes) and asked them to retain Rs.20/- towards their wages and return remaining sum of Rs.80/- to him. PW's.2 to 4 had gone to the arrack shop of PW.1 around 6.30 p.m., on 26.07.1998 and purchased one sachet of arrack worth Rs.10/-. When PW.1 received currency notes from PW.2 and 11 4, he did not suspect. PW.1 retained a sum of Rs.10/- towards the price of arrack consumed/purchased by PW's.2 and 4 and returned a sum of Rs.90/- to each of them. When PW.3 consumed/purchased arrack sachet for Rs.10/- and gave currency note of Rs.100/- PW.1 became suspicious and examined the note in the light shed by petromax lamp and found that security thread and water mark were absent. Therefore, he suspected it as counterfeit currency note. On verification of cash box, he found 3 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/-. Therefore, he went to Kutta Police station and lodged the first information at about 8.00 p.m., on 26.07.1998. He also handed over to the Investigation Officer 4 counterfeit currency notes which were given to him by the aforestated persons. On the next day, the investigation officer summoned PW's.2 to 4 and learnt from them that accused no.1 had given four currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination after availing their services of plucking sweet potatoes in the land of one Prakash during the afternoon of 26.07.1998.
12
9. The investigation officer after verification of notes found that they were counterfeit currency notes thus arrested accused no.1. Accused no.1 gave voluntary statement which lead to recovery of Rs.200/- counterfeit currency notes from his possession (form his house). During interrogation, involvement of accused no.2 was revealed, therefore, accused no.2 was arrested. During interrogation, accused no.2 gave voluntary statement, which lead to recovery of 10 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from his house. After the arrest of accused no.1 and 2, the investigation officer came to know about involvement of accused no.3, 4 and 5 (in view of death of accused no.5, evidence tendered against accused no.5 is omitted from consideration). Thereafter, PW.10 proceeded to the villages of accused no.3, 4 and 6 and they were arrested. The voluntary statement given by accused no.3 lead to seizure of 50 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination, the voluntary statement given by accused no.4 lead to seizure of 10 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and voluntary statement given by 13 accused no.6 lead to seizure of 8 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination. The seized counterfeit currency notes were sent to Government of India Bank Note Press, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. After examination of same, the opinion of Expert was received as per Ex.P17. The contents of opinion are extracted supra.
10. Before appreciating evidence of aforestated witnesses, it will be useful to refer to the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1953 SC 364 (in the case of Dalip Singh & others Vs. The State of Punjab) wherein the Supreme Court has held:
"A witness is normally considered to be independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means that unless the witness has cause such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely."
11. In the case on hand, PW.2-Boja, PW.3-Muthu and PW.4-Baby were working as labourers in the Estate of one Kaibullra Aruna. During the afternoon of 26.07.1998, they were engaged by accused no.1 to pluck sweet potatoes from 14 the land of one Prakash. The evidence of PW's.2 and 4 is consistent. After completing their work, they came to the Teal Stall of accused no.1 which is situate at a short distance from the arrack shop of PW.1. Accused no.1 had to give a sum of Rs.20/- to each of them towards wages. Accused no.1 gave currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each to PW's.2 to 4 and CW.5 (not examined before the trial court) and asked them to return remaining sum of Rs.80/- after retaining a sum of Rs.20/- towards wages. PW's.2 to 4 visited the arrack shop of PW.1 and consumed/purchased a sachet of arrack worth Rs.10/- and gave him Rs.100/- currency note which had been given to them by accused no.1. When PW.1 received currency notes from PW.2 and PW.4, he did not suspect however, when PW.3-Muthu gave currency note, he became suspicious and examined the note in the light shed by petromax lamp in his shop and found that the currency note did not have security thread and water mark was also not there. He suspected it to be counterfeit currency note. He examined the cash box and found that there were three more counterfeit currency notes 15 of Rs.100/- denomination. Therefore, he visited Kutta Police Station and lodged the first information on 26.07.1998. The police officer registered the crime and seized counterfeit currency notes.
12. The learned counsel for accused has referred to various discrepancies brought on record during cross- examination of PW.2 to PW4.
The learned counsel would further submit that as per evidence of PW's.2 and 4, two private witnesses were present when PW.1 visited the police station and lodged the first information and handed over four counterfeit currency notes to the investigation officer. The prosecution should have examined two private witnesses who were present when PW.1 lodged the first information and handed over counterfeit currency notes to the investigation officer.
13. I have gone through the discrepancies elicited in the evidence of PW's.2 to 4. These discrepancies do not touch upon the substratum of evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 that they had received four counterfeit currency notes of 16 Rs.100/- denomination from accused no.1 and handed over the same to PW.1 after purchasing/consuming arrack from his shop. PW's.2 to 4 were working as labourers in the plantation of one Aruna. They had no grudge or enmity against accused no.1, for that matter against any of the accused to falsely implicate them. It is difficult to conceive PW.2 and PW.4 having come in possession of counterfeit currency notes from other source had taken out the name of accused no.1 to falsely implicate him. The evidence of PW's.2 to 4 that accused no.1 had given currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination to each of them, inturn they had given the same to PW.1 is found consistent and credible. The evidence of PW.1 that he had received four counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from PW's.2 to 4 and CW.5-Bera is consistent and credible.
PW.1 had no grudge or grievance against accused no.1. In the first information, PW.1 has stated that, when he enquired PW's.2 to 4, he learnt that accused no.1 who had availed their labour for plucking sweet potatoes had given counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/- denomination and 17 asked them to retain a sum of Rs.20/- towards their wages and return the remaining sum. Therefore, there are no reasons to suspect the evidence of PW.1.
14. The evidence of PW's.1 to 4 is found consistent and credible regarding circulation of counterfeit currency notes by accused no.1. There was no need for the prosecution to examine independent witnesses. PW's.2 to 4 have given evidence in proof of events that had occurred during afternoon of 26.07.1998. PW's.1 to 4 are independent witnesses. They had no grudge or grievance against the accused. Therefore, non-examination of two private witnesses who were present in the police station when the first information was registered by PW.1 does not discredit evidence of PW.1 to PW.4.
15. The evidence of PW.10-PSI (investigation officer), PW.7 (ASI) would reveal that on the following day, accused no.2 was arrested and his voluntary statement was recorded. The voluntary statement of accused no.2 led to recovery of two counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination 18 from his possession. The witnesses for the seizure mahazar have not supported the case of prosecution. They have turned hostile.
16. It is not unusual to find witnesses turning hostile to the case of prosecution.
17. In a decision reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4655 (in the case of State of Karnataka by Hassan City Police
-Vs- Lokesh and others) a Division Bench of this court has held, even if the panchas are not available or unreliable the panchanama can be proved through the evidence of investigation officer.
18. In the case on hand, the evidence on record does not reveal that PW.7 (ASI) and PW.10 (CPI) had any grudge or motive to falsely implicate accused no.1. The oral evidence of investigation officer (PW.10) and PW.7 (ASI) is supported by seizure of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused no.1. From the evidence of PW's.1 to 4, it is proved that accused no.1 had circulated the counterfeit currency notes to PW's.2 to 4 and CW.5.
19
During interrogation, the investigation officer came to know of the involvement of accused no.2, therefore, accused no.2 was arrested and his voluntary statement was recorded. The voluntary statement of accused no.2 led to recovery of 10 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from the possession of accused no.2 (from the house of accused no.2). When the investigation officer seized the counterfeit currency notes, he had prepared a contemporaneous record (mahazar). The independent witnesses who had attested the mahazar have not supported the case of prosecution. They have been declared as hostile witnesses. In view of what has been held in the decision reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4655 (in the case of State of Karnataka by Hassan City Police -vs- Lokesh and others) the evidence of investigation officer is sufficient to prove the voluntary statement made by accused no.2 and recovery of 10 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from the possession of accused no.2.
19. The investigation officer came to know of the involvement of accused no.3, 4 and 6 who are residents of 20 Kerala State. The investigation officers namely PW.10 and PW.7 had visited the house of accused no.3 in Chakkekekal, Kerala State. Accused no.3 was arrested and his voluntary statement was recorded. The investigation officer seized 50 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from the possession of accused no.3 (from his house) in the presence of PW.7 to 10 and a contemporaneous record was prepared as per Ex.P9. Similarly, the investigation officer had visited the house of accused no.4, arrested him and pursuant to the voluntary statement given by accused no.4, the investigation officer seized 10 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from the possession of accused no.4 (from his house) in the presence of independent witnesses namely PW's.11 and 12. The Investigation Officer (PW.10) proceeded to the house of accused no.6, arrested him and pursuant to the voluntary statement given by accused no.6, the investigation officer seized 8 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from the possession of accused no.6 (from his house). PW.7-M.Achuta (ASI) was present all along. The evidence of PW.7 and 21 PW.10 (investigation officers) that they had recorded voluntary statements of accused no.3, 4 and 6 and pursuant to their voluntary statements, they recovered counterfeit currency notes as aforestated does not suffer from any discrepancy.
20. The independent witnesses who had attested the mahazars prepared at the time of recovery of aforestated counterfeit currency notes have not supported the case of prosecution.
21. In the discussion made supra, I have held that if independent witnesses to the prosecution or seizure mahazar do not support the case of prosecution, that cannot be a ground to discredit the evidence of investigation officer or police officials more particularly, when the accused has no case that the investigation officer had grudge or grievance against them.
22. The evidence on record discloses that accused no.3, 4, 6 were not known to the investigation officer (PW.7 22 and PW10) before the date of incident. As already stated, accused no.3, 4 and 6 are from Kerala State. The oral evidence of PW.7 (ASI) and investigation officer (PW.10) is supported by recovery of incriminating materials i.e., counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused 3, 4 and 6 pursuant to voluntary statements made by them. Soon after the above counterfeit currency notes were seized from the possession of accused, the investigation officer had subjected the aforestated counterfeit currency notes to the property forms. The description of numbers of currency notes found in the property form relating to accused no.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 would reveal that many of the seized currency notes were bearing same serial numbers starting from numericals 308 and 381. The opinion furnished by the officer of Government of India Bank Note Press, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh would reveal that counterfeit currency notes seized from the possession of accused, 1 to 3, 4 and 6 had identical distinctive features to distinguish them as counterfeit currency notes. These circumstances would clearly indicate that accused no.1 to 3, 4 and 6 were in 23 contact with each other, they were found in possession of counterfeit currency notes for the purpose of circulating the same as genuine currency notes. They had shared counterfeit currency notes with each other to circulate the same as genuine currency notes. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that accused no.1 to 3, 4 and 6 had entered into criminal conspiracy to circulate counterfeit currency notes as genuine currency notes.
23. The learned counsel for accused relying on a judgment reported in 2004 (2) Kar.L.J. 19 (DB) (in the case of State by Lashkar Police Station, Mysore -vs- M.V.Srinivasa) would submit that report of examination of currency notes (Ex.P17) issued by the Government of India Bank Notes Press, Devas, Madhya Pradesh should not have been accepted without the examination of the officer who had examined the alleged counterfeit currency notes and furnished his opinion.
In the Division Bench judgment cited supra, this court has held that examination of expert is necessary. 24
24. Under Section 292 Cr.P.C., any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any such officer of any Mint or of any Note Printing Press or of any Security Printing Press may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, although such officer is not called as a witness.
Under Section 292 (2) Cr.P.C., the court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such officer as to the subject-matter of his report provided that no such officer shall be summoned to produce any records on which the report is based.
25. In the case on hand, evidence adduced by the investigation officer would reveal the most of seized counterfeit currency notes bear same serial numbers. The report would reveal that there were no security threads, water marks, portrait of Gandhi was imitated, colour, shape does not match with genuine currency notes. The quality of 25 notes was poor and unsharp. The accused have not disputed the expert opinion and it is not the case of accused that they were genuine currency notes. In the circumstances, non- examination of author of Ex.P5 (opinion) has not affected the credibility of evidence adduced by the prosecution. From the report marked as Ex.P17, it is clearly established that currency notes seized from the possession of accused 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 are counterfeit currency notes.
26. The learned counsel for accused would submit that final report was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, COD and the prosecution has not examined the Deputy Superintendent of Police, COD.
As could be seen from the records, entire investigation was completed by PW.10 and the Deputy Superintendent of Police had filed the final report. In the circumstances, non-examination of Deputy Superintendent of Police, CoD had not resulted or caused prejudice to the accused. Therefore, this submission cannot be accepted. 26
27. The learned counsel for accused relying on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2001 (9) SCC 642 (in the case of Umashankar -vs- State of Chattisgarh) would submit that the prosecution has to prove necessary mensrea and has to establish that accused were in possession of counterfeit currency notes knowing or having reasons to believe the same as forged or counterfeit currency notes. In other words, the prosecution has to rule out the possibility of accused being innocent possessors of counterfeit currency notes.
28. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they had not offered any explanation regarding possession of counterfeit currency notes. It is not their case that by chance, they had come in possession of counterfeit currency notes. The evidence on record would clearly establish that accused no.1 was in possession of 2 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and they were bearing same serial numbers. They were easily distinguishable from genuine currency notes. By mere glance, one can make out them as counterfeit currency 27 notes. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that accused no.1 was an innocent possessor of currency notes. From the evidence on record, it is proved that 10 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination were seized form the possession of accused no.2 pursuant to voluntary information given by him. These currency notes bear the features which make them easily distinguishable from genuine currency notes. Many of the currency notes bear the same serial numbers. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that accused no.2 was an innocent possessor. Accused no.3 was found in possession of 50 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination. These notes bear apparent features which would distinguish them as counterfeit currency notes. Accused no.6 was found in possession of 8 counterfeit currency notes the features of which would apparently make out they are counterfeit currency notes. Some of these currency notes bear same serial numbers. The serial numbers found on the currency notes seized from the possession of accused no.1 to 3, 4 and 6 have similar numericals.
28
29. In view of the above discussion, I hold that prosecution has proved that accused no.1 to 3, 4 and 6 are guilty of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 489(B) and 489 (C) IPC. The magnitude of offences committed by the accused do not warrant reduction of sentence.
30. The learned trial judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 489(B) and 489 (C) IPC.
31. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-