Karnataka High Court
P K Raman @ P Kodanda Raman vs State Of Karnataka By Ccb Police on 12 March, 2009
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
._ PROSECLITORj %%%%%
{BY-SR1;VAMIRAMAKRISHNA, HCGPI
YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.2,000/- I/DITO PAY
THE FINE AMOUNT IT IS FURTHER TO
SUFFER S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE...IOI%fEI~;N'G.E
U/S.489»B IPC.
CRL.A.NO.426/2003
BETWEEN:
SRIRAMAREDDY
@ SHIVAREDDY, ~.
SON OF IVIIINISWAMY REDEDY;
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. *
RESIDING ATNO.I3'1;~
RANGASWAMY TEMPLE" ;V .
BANGALORE. ._ ~ ~
I ...APPELLANT
{BY SR1: _ 4--I{ARi?A'GAN --,_KAI\Y1AT_H AND IvI.N.KRISIINA,
ADVSJ I I=; "-4>;A*« I
AND;
STATE BY "PO I--I\IS:PE::CT"(.)R
C.C.B. POLICE, EAN.GA.LORE.
REPRESENT 'FD BY SENIOR PUBLIC
I ...RESPONDENT
Vf»::VRL.A FILED U/8.374 CR.P.C. EY ADV.OCATE--' FOR THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE D ",JUDGEM;_EI\IT DT.30.I.O3 PASSED BY THE XXIII «cij-..fADSDI:,.c£:. AND S.J.._ HLORE CITY IN SC NO. _ 4j2I6/-2000. CONVICTING THE APPELLAN '/ACCUSED N,O;~2=' FOR THE OFFENCE RUNISHAELE U/SS.489~B IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO RI. FOR I THREE YEARS AND TO RAY A FINE OF RS.2000/-- I/D I TO THE FIND AMOUNT IT IS FURTHER ORDERED TO SUFFER 31 FOR 6 MONTHS.
THESE Apmyus cmmmwe ON Foe ssaaaia TamummarasCOURTpEuvEREDTaEaQLgmmNe;»_ JUDGMsNTQruT This Appeal is filed?againsathe the XXIII Additional Cgty Judge.
Bangalore (by the in S.C.NO.
216/ 2000 and, COn\fjQ.£ih.g' for the offence punish able .
ZracyapgafifgsbafirfifisfltwtheCCB;mhmz Bangaiores'-' Inspector Upparpet on 29/O9/'A9~9:.' has came to be registered as 21'6,!2DOQ:. The contents of the complaint .A Ci'iseiose..th_a'i2,Qn an inforrnation received on 29/09/99 "t.}ia.t,: "persons are Cor11mitting an offence of f:1"afi"ieki.1jg' eounterfeit notes. In order to find out them. 'team was Corlstitmed. Rs.5O/M notes resembling to
- the counterfeit notes was prepared and PWWI a person Wiaelonging to the CCB has been sent as a customer and K white paper and MO--2 fake notes of Rs.50(:.)'/of and Rs.100/--. The trial court has recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The'..ap_pelVlant.S denied the statements. j;trial:4_."co'ui*ti_LH..g"tAerl' appreciating the materials' on "record ',va'sA.plea_t§led convict the appellants for punished them to undergo a fine of Rs.2000/- each go simple imprisonmenétttfargg6_tnonths§.:_4V ""
5. Vin Crl.A.No.4l7/2003 has has not proved their case, however 't.he'iclea19'iie'dV session judge has committed anégentor .arid_rpun';lshed the appellants. He also that the complainant and the investigation offi.9eAr"'a'r_€V__\o'n'e".and the same. It is contended that the app:ella.ntsv'";have not committed any offence of such .sV'nat_ure;'" However the complainant who is PW-6 as 'fialsely implicated them. The second contention of the "appellant counsel is that the PW~l who is a head
-.} constable of CO8. has not deposed anything in support. of case of the prosecution.
examination he has deposed that " 1 went'7ahdjV'e.nqi1i;+edV' with A~1. A-1 went by saying; he wilii.:_'c'ornVe"after half an hour. After half an hoL14ri..he--._came',.2;nd tookAhi1VT'1a. near the Tank Build Road itoiithe Pafakaia 5*' floor which was followed» Aeédtook him to the room No.4 and also present.
A-1 shown" shine of different denomination_s..'A:avnd the inspector." PWMI in hasvwnvot stated anything about aceuse'd__No.l' is no evidence adduced on behalf of p1'osecV'ut,ion as to the participation of A--i haying taken the room for the rent. Neither .reft_1t1 "1*ee.e_ipVfiV'~~"h.ot manager there could have been examined.
A. 6".'¢'I"he further deposition of PW--1 is that in "presence of panchas. the counterfeit notes have been "seized from room No.4 of the parakai Mutt building. i PW~i has further deposed that inspector has aiso prepared t.he mahazar in room No.4". Theeflsaid deposition is falsified for the reason that room No.4 has been seized except the tjabitie 9 and chairs in the room could have been; tvhteyt' have not been seized. . A V' p
7. The deposition of 7381 that " in that room _A--i"uand PW~1.
PW~i says that.V.evounterfe.it. the drawer of the tab1e".'_.Iin eross:rexarni2iatiori" PW2 has stated that. notes personally. On the contruaryd .sai.d"stat.ement PW--2 states that " it is tru.ept.ha"t ._afte:¥" M02 immediately I came to 1gnovir*tii2at..jthey are eounterieit, notes". No one can 1 are the Counterfeit notes.
8_v."Pi5osecution has examined PW~3 who is the paneh"~---for exhibit. "P-1, police mahazar. in his chief ""._eXa1ninatioi1 he has deposed that " on the table in a it " "bundle on the top and bottom there was one real 9 R560/« note and in the middle there were white papers. Therefore, there is no much help to the prosecution with this evidence of PW3.
9. PW~»4 has given his opinion as per 'E-;5:.f'§2.l' V' a scientific officer. He was notfltdraiieed. to the counterfeit notes.
10. PWMG, who is the"'l.nvest.igatir1gaoffieerd against whose deposition l~e_arr_i'edd_eodti:1s'e.1.subniitted that he himself is the eornplainant al--s.o" ifrve.st1gatIng officer. It is in conti'aiz'eritiori._ofi e'stahli:she'd.principle of law. He being the' _ he could not have been authorized to ease.
" E1. in of the said contention. the learned the appellant counsel has relied on the in {Gholtu Modi and etc. Vs. State Bihar;E'.C1'v-'d"Law Journal 1986 1031 8 (Copy) to the effect . that inirestigation done by PW«6 is not proper.
12. It is second submitted by the appellant it "Counsel that the entire 9<ise of the prosecution is that H} the counterfeit notes were found from room N04 which is in occupation of A-1 and A-2. The appellants have denied the fact that they are in possession of --'t'lie"'*«ro'orn No.4 of the Parakal Mutt Building. 1r;f't.hié.:' i?'e,'géi_rd"'. prosecution should have exami--n'ed--eithetj.tl1e4_r:heCwl<?'i-n ' ledger or check out ledger rrianlageli building or the room boys. '~v.I;§'e.nee the of the appellants of roomVN~o..4 itself his ud--i.sputedV;" he seizer rnahazar as per exhihit~i.i?~ll'v'va'lso been properly drawn. One§~voi"'~thfe parlohfias ltu.1'nedVvf'hostile. There are eontr_vadietioil'isV .i_ri:'~.pthe:v»"'eyidenee of PW--6. In his chief examinlation he that. "after 5 mim.it.es Vijaya ,Kumar__Vhas signaled us to come inside. I went alotig staff inside the room. I did not have time ~io..__gef':t_}1e'search warrant. I wrote a letter. After ent'erii<ig "the room Awi and AW2 were sitting there, he "opened the drawer and he found counterfeit notes. I xiprepared mahazar exhibit as per P1. In his cross it ""exan1inat.1'on at para No.4 he has deposed that " it is :1 true to suggest. that PWWI opened the drawer of the table in room No.4. About 5 minutes PW--} was.__there in the room before the signal. Inzmediateiynpi'-after opening the table drawer they found notesdrofv and Rs.50/-- denominations. y""'Th.e i_4ea1_fne'd'._ counsel ' sumbitted that in the chief exa1'nina--t.dion that A-2 had opened uhi4s'""'cross~'VV examination he has°.,.§iepos'ed~PW§}"'opvened the drawer. These are the ~iconit1"ardic.toi'yfStatements of the Investigation he has deposed that '=' it is that I have not produced any piece o'fveifidene.e that accused No.1 and 2 were st.ayir"1g, in v'1\/Iutt" From this very piece of it is doubtful that Al and A2 were in 'V.'I;'r'1'..para No.3 of the crossvexamination PW--6 has st'at.e'cl";that I don't know who is the owner of the ijarakall Mutt and I have not verified the said 'aspect. with the room boy at that time". In Vi€W of the it "above depositions of PW--6 it is submitted that 'R 12 prosecution has not examined anybody either the owner of the building or atleast the manager or a morn boy to prove the presence of A1 and A-2. which been some assistance to the prosecution l
13. The learned COuI1S€l:"fO1"'«thet apbjelvlants.flallso ' relied on judgments in (State ofVKcirr£at'alca._.Papa?-;:;Fotv'nVV Police Station, Bliadrauath-».Vs<':Vi3, Slvteshadri and Others) ILR KAR 218:"ayheret'in'Athellldiyisioiivbench of this court. has held that. ilmtiavrtalllv"inv»e'stigatiori, is an essential beo:r_ot:.«k {foij aaiiyc A"'sjt:Cvcessful prosecution. Whei»'e tuhelAl;lOv: 3'the«.Vc"ornp1air1anf. is the architect of the whole edifice lwhlioh' to the prosecution case. He has'submitt'edHthatv'in the instant case the complaint. VA 'and investigating officer is same and the expectation of ._fai_1f_ appellants is suspected.
behalf of the respondent learned Coverriment Prosecutor submitted that. on the basis of evidence of PW--5, PW»6 and other prosecution it "witiiesses that on the date and time referred above it is "C found that Ami and A2 were in possession of the counterfeit notes in room No.4 of Parakail It proves beyond doubt that appellants and have committed an offence um:ier..»°--._ section 449. PW-4 who is sciontifi.cézexépettfgave an expert opinion as per.»'E2g.P«2"Athéit the"'s.ei.::ed _.notesVt> were counterfeit notes. has proved the case. in the CCB which has got wide 'Bangaiore City.
Since he,jinicre-iiibieiiiuinformation about couniietieiitii' . nizicle a complaint to the jurisdictionai i.e.. Uppairpet Police Station. Heetooik investigation and submitted charge sheet.:"'.i:Th:ere is no evidence to show that he has been investigating officer. Despite of this PW-6 hats" inifestigated the offence. drew the mahazari and sei_zedV"the counterfeit notes. There were no lapses in the proceedings. He further submitted that in criminal matter. the moment police officer receives a i complaint orally or in writing he has to initiate the matter by registering the ease and also ir1\{est,igate the matter. The learned government prosecutor St1»bn1itt--ed that there is no bias and against the PW--6 and the appellants.have»l.afe0lt"rIl1a¢i.¢Q'any suggestion to that effect. t,hel"safcla is not available to the appell.ar1tsl'a:t."V' support of his contention he has reported in 2004 SCC{£Pll;MEl Wh:erei.n...j:l~l0n'ble Supreme Court helil ntiirited out to show that the caused prejudice or was bias against'thjeaeei.ilserl', of the investigation Cannot Z .ln«--._para No.3 of the judgment it is observed Could not point out to show that the said invesltigatiori Caused prejudice or it was bias agaiansvtl appellants. The PW--8 in his official capacity gave the information, registered the case and as a part it Wlcflif his official duty later investigated the case and Filed 15 the charge s.heet.. He was not in anyway interested in the case. There is nothing to find any sort. of bia_s___in the process of investigating the case. In H V Kus!1*ijS:"iate ofGLy'arat, another reported 2004 SCC the investigating officer if Vibe} the' complainant can investigate theVrna--t_ter and that n(;g';'l'1'1VrV1'()t be suspected unless they~v..flh'aVe fa~;.sec1,¢.rii"r§i5j'e&;tions[' about bias or prejudiee agaiiist' the appeliaiit. In the instant case there is .suei;'vobjee_ti~o_nyraised by making in suggestio:n"to the prose.Cution'.f-- , _ 246;' iiavejfiiiebarti"'the__'argL1ments made by both the parties. inb View-__oAf,th'e"biVsubmissions made by bot.h the pagri:ies_iV.an_d I aifnvre-quired to answer the foiiowing points pi wh'ieth'-arise ifo';-"g my consideration:
1} to whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts'? 2} As to whether the prosecution has Committed an error by allowing the investigating officer '\ If) to investigate the matter he being the compiainant'?
in respect of the first point my answer uroL11d~~-btepwagainust the prosecution for the foliowing reasons_.:._ V Among the witnesses' iexiajrriined' xtbpig prosecution. PW-1 is a head conlstabie deposition he has deposed along with Awl to room No.4 he found the counterfeit notes PW«~6 aion:Cg mth other' the room. The total that they have found the notes NO.1 and 2 in room the "PaV_ra'kai' Mutt. But to prove that Accused at No.1 and were in occupation of the room was .eX.a_mi'ne'd..__ 'Hie appeiiants have denied their presence in room "-No}? much iess their possession of counterfeit "notes.v"' PW--«6 who has drawn mahazar and he says to seized property in the presence of panehas. PW--«3 it Wwho is examined as pafich has stated that on the table $7 there was bundle of Rs.50/~ and RS500/-- notes and in the middie there were white papers. He has'.':i"n his erossexamination stated that himself. one oi'--h.i;;_.__f19ie_nci and 4 officers were present. The friendof. not.' been examined. But aectordingipto we :1;-.res.ent at the time of seizure. Inthe a.bsenee of eX'a'VV111iVnat_i§onh any persons to prove that Azeeused and 2 were present. in room No.---4_"fanci_ that"~-th.e"r.oom No.4 was in their possession, it is. .d.iffiC'u1t=_to-hdbeiiepve the Version of 3:17'. joffieiai witness working as scientific. issued exhibit P--~2. No doubt. PWj4' has that he under went training for of counterfeit notes. Except these .sta_ter"neants 'there is no deposition from his side as to his
e){L'per*tise,"'V'in finding genuinity of Counterfeit notes. I H *rh.a._\;"e seen the exhibit P»2, FSL Report of }E'W«~-4}. From the report, no doubt. it is found that the seized notes it "are counterfeit notes. But: in the evidence, he has not 18 stated how he conducted the experimentation and how he found that. the seized notes were fake notes. the absence of his deposition Ex.P--2 discloses tt--h'at'f"p'<I?LV"\f¢4 has cleariy given an opinion that suspected" notes"'w.ef1*eh"» not the currency notes.
18. The contradictory of P'.?.§'~'6. ais§'gc§es_ to disprove the case of the..c4p:.p;osect3tio1i.LT:"_:In"a>hVis 'chiefs examination he has"~depo~s'ed* t,thavte~.._aceus'ed"N02 was sitting in the room when hev'enteredA_'t.here and accused No.2 showed t'h_ei_'-::ou§nterfe'it 'noteys..it_._V:fAfter verification it was suspeteted. ..1;hat are the counterfeit notes. But in the 'Cr._oss--exVarriiria;t'io_ri' at para No.4 he deposes while answering to .the stiggestion made by the accused that the drawer of the table in room No. 4. In yi'e__v,r o'f."'thes.et"two statements there is inconsistency in the prosecution as to how they found out 'tctmntesrfeit. notes. PW36 says that he has not produced piece of paper to show that accused No.1 and 2 it "were staying in parikaii mutt. These are ali the iapses "i IL)' of prosecution case in proving the against t.he appellants.
19. The nature of the offence aileged appeliants is that of .-dealing in counterfeit.__not'e.sV§'ixdltteisdii' not the case of the prosecutionftha't' in the Parakal Mutt the notes were generated. is *theVii7hcase.,p that they found these note«s:"in rooin these notes said to be in possessiiiorie-Iiofjpla-ccused"'No.1 and 2. The prosecution stops itself instead of proceeding 'theglsourceotfvtihesefnotes. Whether it was printed'i7I._here«.petc:,'§'t.si1ou1d have been gone through by the"prosecu.tion' to prove the case against acctgused Nohl. The prosecution also shouid have 'e§;amined_"t1f1e witnesses for the presence of accused the table and chair which were used to keep the currency in room No.4 shouid have been seized 'sand for the presence and possession of room No.4 as it admitted by the PW~6 none have been examined a Wwhich goes to show that the prosecution has not proved i 20 the presence and participation of the accused No.1 and 2 for committing the offence of counterfeit not:es.j'b--eyond reasonable doubt. in View of these lapses in....t_l'ie:'csise"of the prosecution. it is difficult to believe"l"of"t'heVW prosecution. Hence I am oi't1'ie;';\/ieitf that has not property appreciated the-jniaterials.oVnl'recor<:Is;g Therefore, I answer the point'
20. The contention that the investigating ofiicer should not be one and rejected on the or substantial injustice that is causeel' innot by the appellants in the instant. Case';._ Wet is required in the absence of any "is that whether any bias or prejudice is .Ca'use'd:°v,toVl.']the accused by virtue of such an investigation. In the instant case. any personal ir:.t__erference in the offence or personal enemity between °tlhe"llparties has not been established. The appellants it "have not raised any objections or made any suggestions