Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii)On the same day at 6.45 p.m., he received M.O.6 series, original two rupees Indian currency one in number, M.O.7 counterfeit two rupees Indian currency, M.O.8 series counterfeit American dollars in 100 denominations 50 in numbers in the presence of the same witnesses under Ex.P19, Athatchi from the accused Thambiraj. He brought the accused Gunasekaran and Thambiraj to Madurai D.C.B. Police station and on the basis of Ex.P.16, statement recorded from Balan, he registered a case in crime No.138/1987 and prepared First Information Report, Ex.P.20. Thereafter, he arrested the accused Ponnappan and in the presence of P.W.2 Kumbam and one Syed, he recovered M.O.9 series, counterfeit American Dollars 100 denominations, M.O.10, counterfeit two rupees Indian currency and M.O.11, original two rupees Indian currency one in number under Ex.P21 Athatchi. He also arrested A8 Karuppiah in the presence of the same witnesses and recovered M.O.12 series counterfeit American Dollars in 100 denominations 50 in nos, M.O.13, original five rupees Indian currency and M.O.14 counterfeit two rupees Indian currency four in nos., along with the front cover of Kumutham magazine, which was covered the same under Ex.P22 and sent the accused for judicial custody and sent the material objects to the Court under Form 95. He sent a note to the Reserve Bank of India, Chennai regarding the recoveries of counterfeit currency notes and counterfeit American Dollars in 100 denominations. He gave requisition Ex.P5 to send the counterfeit notes to the Currency Note Press, Nashik for analysis.

13.It is appropriate to incorporate the ingredients of Section 489(A) of I.P.C, which read as follows:

(i)Accused counterfeited or performed any part of the process of counterfeiting.
(ii)Currency-note or Bank-note were counterfeited or attempted to be counterfeited.

Even accepting the evidence of P.W.5, M.O.1 series has been seized at C.K.Printograph, belong to A1 and M.O.2 series has been seized from A5, as per the evidence of P.W.22 Vijayakumar, when he made inspection at C.K.Printograph, he has not seen any evidence. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the accused had prepared counterfeit notes.

16.Furthermore, as per the evidence of P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer, he has deposed that even though M.O.1 series have been seized in his presence, he was not able to say that M.O.1 series is counterfeit American dollars or xerox copies of the same. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that to verify as to whether M.O.1 series is counterfeit notes or genuine notes and the same have not been sent to American Embassy and no report has been received. In such circumstances, there is no prima facie evidence to show that M.O.1 series is counterfeit American dollars. So, considering the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.19 and P.W.22, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that A1, A5, A7 and A8 were guilty for the offence under Sections 120(B) read with 489(A) of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt shall be given to the appellants/A1, A5, A7 and A8 and they were liable to be acquitted from the charge under Section 498(A) of I.P.C..

18.In respect of A8 is concerned, no one has deposed that A8 was in possession of counterfeit notes. The witnesses, who were examined to prove the guilt of A8, were turned hostile and there is no evidence to show that A8 was in possession of M.O.2 series. As per the case of prosecution, on 11.12.1987 A8 was arrested and from him, M.Os.12 and 14 were seized under Exp.22 in the presence of P.W.2 Kumbam. But, he has not supported the case of prosecution, only his signature alone has been marked as Ex.P1 and P2 and the other attestor Syed was not examined before the trial Court. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that A8 Karuppiah has possessed counterfeit Indian currency notes or American dollar, knowing fully well that it was forged or counterfeited notes and he was in conscious possession and used the same as genuine. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of A8 for the offence under Section 489(C) of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt.