Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.7.2002 in S.C.No.278/97 of the court of II Additional Sessions Judge-Thiruvananthapuram, at the instance of the 3rd accused in the above Sessions court as he is convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 489(B) and (C ) of IPC.

2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 22.2.1991, the accused 3 in numbers were engaged in trafficking of counterfeit notes and in pursuant to their common intention, the 3rd accused handed over 34 counterfeit currency notes to the 2nd accused, who in turn handed over to the 1st accused and the 1st accused, out of the said fake notes, had handed over four counterfeit notes to Pws.2 and 3 and all the accused were involved in the trafficking with  an intention to use the same as genuine and thus according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 489(B) and (C) r/w Section 34 of IPC. On getting information from PW1, PW8-the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Nedumangadu Police Station went to the cabin of the Medical Officer, Homeo Hospital, Karakulam and the police seized four currency notes as per the mahazar, in the presence of Pws.5 and 6. According to the police, on the basis of the revealment made by the accused, altogether 39 currency notes were seized by the local Police and thereafter, the investigation was undertaken by CBCID(CFS) Unit, Thiruvananthapuram. Thus on completing the investigation, finally a report was laid in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad, from where the case was committed to the Sessions court on 31.1.1997 as per the order of the learned Magistrate in C.P.No.29/96 and in the Sessions court, S.C.No.278/97 was instituted and subsequently, made over the case to the present court for trial and disposal. 

10. As I indicated earlier, PW4 who examined in this case is the owner cum cashier of Shalimar Hotel, where PW3 went for taking tea. PW5 is an attestor to Ext.P2 mahazar, by which four fake notes were recovered from the 1st accused. However, PW10 turned hostile. PW6 is an attestor to Ext.P3 recovery mahazar, on the basis of which, five counterfeit currency notes of rupees 10 denomination were seized from the house of 3rd accused. PW7 is also an attestor to Ext.P4 mahazar with respect to the seizure of 30 counterfeit notes of rupees 10 denomination from the house of the 1st accused.

14. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the appellant is implicated in the crime on the basis of the confession made by the 2nd accused and also on the basis of the seizure of counterfeit notes from the house of the appellant and therefore according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the involvement of the appellant in the trafficking of counterfeit notes and therefore no interference is warranted.

15. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and I have perused the evidence and materials on record.

16. In the light of the rival contentions and in view of  the evidence and materials on record, the question to be considered is whether the trial court is justified in its finding and convicting the appellant for the offence under sections 489(B) and (C) of IPC.

17. At the outset, it is to be noted that by the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has already acquitted the 2nd accused, who, as per the prosecution allegation, has handled the fake notes and on the basis of his disclosure statement, the present appellant is implicated. Crl.A.No.629/02 is dismissed as abated, since the 1st accused is no more. Going by the entire case of the prosecution, several suspicious circumstances can be noted and the prosecution has miserably failed to clear those reasonable doubts. The very origination of the criminal case against the accused in the present case is doubtful. It is pertinent to note that when PW8-the then Sub Inspector of Police reached in the cabin of PW1, he saw some counterfeit notes on the table of PW1. PW8 did not witnessed the possession of the currency notes by the 1st accused. It is  beyond dispute that, if the evidence of PW1 is taken as true, he received the fake notes on 22.2.1991 allegedly given by Pws.2 and 3. Thus when PW8 reached in the cabin of PW1 on 23.2.1991, the fake notes were entrusted with PW8 by PW1. From the above facts it can be seen that the Investigating Agency has not seized any counterfeit notes from the physical possession of the 1st accused. Going by the evidence of Pws.1 to 4, it can be further seen that, Pws.2 and 3 were handled with the currency notes on 22.2.1991 and PW8 seized the notes on 23.2.91. So, how the fake notes in question reached on the table of PW1, there is no proper explanation and reliable evidence and the available evidence are insufficient to rule out the involvement of any other person in trafficking such fake notes. So, PW8 proceeded with the case simply on the basis of the information given by PW1. Hence, according to me, the very basis of the prosecution case itself is doubtful. In this juncture it is also relevant to note that, without an elaborate discussion the learned Judge has acquitted the 2nd accused,  who said to have received the currency notes from the 3rd accused and handed over the same to the 1st accused and it is true that, no recovery of fake notes is effected from the possession of the 2nd accused. But the real fact is that he had also handled the fake notes, but the learned Sessions Judge did not assign any reason to acquit accused no.2, except for the reason that no recovery was effected.