Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the first accused(A1) in S.C.No.36/2005 on the file of the Court of Session, Manjeri, challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 489C IPC.

2. The prosecution case as stated in the final report/charge sheet is as follows: The accused persons, two in number, knowing that possession of counterfeit notes and dealing with them is punishable, on 27/01/1998, at 20:45 p.m., were found in possession of five counterfeit notes of the denomination of ₹100/- with which the first accused(A1) tried to purchase provisions from the shop of PW3 and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 489 B, C read with Section 34 IPC.

12. Section 489C IPC says that any person in possession of any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. The fact that MO1 series currency notes are counterfeit notes, is established by Ext.P9 report which is admissible under Section 292 Cr.P.C. The said report has not been discredited in any way and therefore there is nothing to disbelieve the prosecution story that MO1 series notes are counterfeit notes. Now the question is, has these notes been recovered/seized from A1 in this case?

13. Here I refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove their case. As noticed earlier, Ext.P2 FIR was suo motu registered on 27/01/1998 by PW1, the then S.I of police, Nilambur police station. In the FIS it is stated thus - on 27/01/1998 at 20:45 hours, information was received that a person had tried to purchase provisions using a counterfeit currency note and that people have restrained him at the spot. He along with a team comprising of PW3, a constable, and two other constables proceeded to the place of occurrence, which is near the tiles company/factory situated at Vallappuzha. He found that about 25 people had gathered there. From the said gathering, a person named Kundany Muhammad (CW7) came forward and pointing to A1, that is, E. Muhammad, told him that the latter had tried to purchase provisions from the shop of Anappattath Muhammadali (PW3) using a counterfeit currency note. On a personal search of A1, he found A1 be in possession of five currency notes of the denomination of ₹100/- in his right hand. On being convinced that the notes are counterfeit, he arrested A1 at 21:05 p.m. and in the presence of witnesses, the counterfeit notes were seized as per a seizure mahazar prepared then. Though he had made enquiries regarding A2 and A3 who had escaped from the scene, he was unable to apprehend them. By 10:30 p.m., he along with A1 and the seized articles returned to the police station and registered crime no.48/1998 for the offence punishable under Section 489C read with Section 34 IPC.

15. PW2, police constable, Nilambur police station, who is stated to have accompanied PW1 to the scene of occurrence, supports the case stated by PW1. According to PW2, he had accompanied PW1 and assisted PW1 in completing the formalities. He identified A1 in the box. In the cross examination, he denied the defense case of false implication.

16. PW3, the person from whose shop A1 is alleged to have attempted to purchase provisions using counterfeit notes, when examined does not fully support the prosecution case. He admitted that he was conducting a provision shop. He denied any acquaintance with the accused in this case. He also denied knowledge about the incident. According to PW3, no such incident of the accused coming to his shop and trying to purchase articles with a counterfeit note had taken place. He admits his signature in Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. He was asked as to the circumstances under which he had attested Ext.P2, to which he had answered thus: - on the said day, there was a fight in front of his shop, which took place by about 8.00 p.m. The fight had taken place between some people of his locality, that is, one Ashraf Ali and gang. He had not informed the incident to the police. However, he admitted that the police had come to scene of occurrence. PW2 also admitted that his shop is situated near the tiles factory at Vallappuzha. He also admitted that the place is known as Vallappuzha tile factory (വല പഴ ഓടകമന ). He denied having given any statement to the police or having stated that he had seen the incident in this case. He was confronted with his 161 statement. He was asked whether he had stated to the police that on 27/01/1998 between 8.00 and 8.30 p.m. a person had come to his shop and purchased wills cigarette and Sabari bar soap, both costing ₹30/-, he answered that he does not deal in the said brand of cigarette. PW3 did not give any answer when he was asked whether he had restrained the man who made the purchase on suspecting the genuineness of the currency note handed over by the latter. He also did not give any answer to the question put to him that it was he and CW7, his uncle, who had restrained A1 on the said day. He denied having informed the matter to the police. He feigned ignorance when he was asked whether he along with other persons had informed the police, pursuant to which the police had come to the place. The prosecutor is then seen to have handed over a 100 rupee note to PW3 which was identified as a genuine note. Thereafter, MO1 series notes were handed over to PW3, who after examining it admitted that they are not genuine notes. He denied A1 having handed over a counterfeit currency note like MO1 series notes, which he had refused to accept. He also denied the suggestion put to him that he had attested Ext.P2 seizure mahazar after fully comprehending/understanding the contents of the same. In the cross examination, he deposed that he had not given any false statement to the police. According to him, he had attested in Ext.P2 seizure mahazar at the police station. He was summoned to the police station relating to an investigation in a case relating to a fight that had taken place in front of his shop. He was then asked to sign in two to three papers. He never asked the purpose for which he was made to sign in the papers. To a question whether he had signed in the papers at the police station believing it to be relating to the case relating to a fight in front of the shop, he answered in the affirmative. He further deposed that he had affixed his signature in a blank paper. (അട പട കകസ ന ആവശ തന കവണ യ ണ എന മനസ ല ക യ കണ ഒപടത? അനത. എഴത ത കപപറ ല കണ ഒപടവചത ?