Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Officers, in the presence of the panch witnesses, prepared a detailed mahazar, seized the incriminating articles, i.e., the alleged counterfeit Indian Currency notes, totally worth Rs.2,00,000/- along with other articles which were found in the box. The DRI Officers then had interrogated the said accused and recorded their voluntary statements as contemplated under Section 108 of the Customs Act and registered the case in their office in O.R.No.3/2008 and arrested Accused Nos.2 and 3 and produced them before the CJM Court, Mangalore. Thereafter, the DRI Officers took the seized counterfeit notes to the RBI to confirm whether the same were genuine or counterfeit notes. The RBI Officers tested the same and confirmed that the seized notes were counterfeit Indian Currency notes. Further, the DRI Officers, on the information gathered from Accused Nos.2 and 3, apprehended Accused No.4, recorded his voluntary statement as contemplated under Section 108 of the Customs Act in view of the fact that he had received similar parcel from Dubai sent by one Santhosh / Accused No.1 against whom the case was split up and subsequently committed. It was found that the fourth accused was in constant touch with Santhosh. Hence, the DRI Officers found that there was conspiracy among all the four accused pertaining to trafficking of counterfeit currency notes. Thereafter the DRI Officers handed over the custody of Accused No.4 as well to the SHO of Kavoor Police Station.

17. Though it is contended by the prosecution that the said Indian currency notes had been counterfeited in Pakistan and then sent to U.A.E. to various persons and other neighbouring countries from U.A.E. Dubai and that the accused Santhosh K had sent the same to India to various persons, however there is no evidence forthcoming to connect the said accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 489-A IPC as regards counterfeiting currency notes by himself or his participation in the process of counterfeiting the currency notes. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that when the accused Santhosh K landed at Cochin Airport from U.A.E., Dubai, the Immigration Officers had detained him and handed him over to the police officers who took him to Mangalore and produced him before PW-1 - I.O. But however, Santhosh K. did not possess any Indian counterfeit currency notes. Hence, she contends that there is no direct or any circumstantial evidence on record to show that either this accused was found in possession of Indian counterfeit currency notes or he had made use of the same as genuine notes. Though the voluntary statement of this accused as per the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act was obtained by PW-1 as per Exhibit P-35, there is no satisfactory evidence available on record to connect the said accused Santhosh for the offence punishable under Sections 489-A and Section 489-C of the IPC.

27. On a careful consideration of the contentions advanced by the learned Senior counsel Shri Hashmath Pasha for appellants in Crl.A.880/2010, the learned counsel Smt. Haleema Ameen appearing for appellants in Crl.A.869/2010 and Crl.A.872/2011 and the learned counsel Shri V.S. Hegde, learned SPP-2 appearing for the State and on a perusal of the evidence as well as the material on record, it is gathered that on 18.03.2008 Shri Madhusudhan Bhat, the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mangalore on receiving credible information with regard to smuggling activities, i.e., trafficking of counterfeit Indian currency notes through XPS Courier Parcel Service Office, Mangalore, had formed a team along with other officers and two panch witnesses and had rushed to the aforesaid XPS Courier Office, Mangalore, at 4.00 p.m. He had enquired with the concerned staff of the courier office with regard to receipt of a parcel from UAE and was waiting there along with panch witnesses. At about 4.30 p.m., two persons, i.e., Accused Nos.2 and 3 had come to the XPS Courier Service Office and had enquired about the parcel received from UAE, Dubai. The courier personnel, delivered the parcel to them after verifying the identity and mobile number. In the meanwhile, the Intelligence Officers had enquired Accused Nos.2 and 3 about the contents in the said parcel. But however the accused had replied that they were ignorant of the contents in the said box. Then, the said box was asked to be opened by the accused themselves in the presence of panch witnesses. On opening, they found that it contained several items including a bundle covered with carbon paper and on unwrapping it, they found fake Indian Currency Notes of one thousand rupees and five hundred rupees denomination, totally amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-. The Officers, in the presence of the panch witnesses, prepared a detailed mahazar, seized the incriminating articles, i.e., the alleged counterfeit Indian Currency notes, totally worth Rs.2,00,000/- along with other articles which were found in the box. The DRI Officers then had interrogated the said accused and recorded their voluntary statements as contemplated under Section 108 of the Customs Act and registered the case in their office in O.R.No.3/2008 and arrested Accused Nos.2 and 3 and produced them before the CJM Court, Mangalore. Thereafter, the seized notes were checked with the RBI and were confirmed to be counterfeit Indian Currency notes. Further, the DRI Officers, on the information gathered from Accused Nos.2 and 3, apprehended Accused No.4, recorded his voluntary statement as contemplated under Section 108 of the Customs Act in view of the fact that he had received similar parcel from Dubai sent by one Santhosh / Accused No.1 against whom the case was split up and subsequently committed. It was found that the fourth accused was in constant touch with Santhosh. Hence, the DRI Officers found that there was conspiracy among all the four accused pertaining to trafficking of counterfeit currency notes. Thereafter the DRI Officers handed over the custody of Accused No.4 as well to the SHO of Kavoor Police Station. Thereafter, on 16.04.2008 the Senior Intelligence Officer of DRI reported the said matter to the SHO of Kavoor Police station in writing, who registered a case in Crime No.38/2008 against the accused. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, took the said accused to police custody and conducted mahazar through panchas, took some photographs of the XPS Courier office, received the alleged counterfeit Indian currency notes from the DRI officers and sent the notes to Forensic Science Laboratory and got it confirmed that the said notes were all counterfeit notes. The I.O. after completion of investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 419, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions and was numbered as S.C.No.63/2008. Since Santhosh / Accused No.1 could not be secured, the charge-sheet against him was split up and was registered as a separate case. Thus, the case in S.C.No.63/2008 proceeded against Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. Further, after accused Santhosh was secured, the case was proceeded against him in S.C.No.51/2010. By the respective orders, all the four accused have been convicted by the Trial Court.

The materials collected and recorded reveals that accused No.4 / Mohammed Asif is an innocent person and he was not at all present on 18.03.2008 along with accused Nos.2 and 3. His presence was only secured 21.04.2008. There is no evidence on record to prove that accused no.4 received any counterfeit notes nor he was found in possession of any counterfeit notes or he has circulated such notes. There is also no evidence so as to establish that accused no.4 had criminal conspiracy with the other accused to commit offence as narrated in complaint. Under such circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have held Accused No.4 guilty of offence punishable under Section 489-B or 489-C of IPC. Though accused no.4 had received one parcel of UAE, Dubai, but there is no evidence to show that it contained counterfeit notes or that he had knowledge of the contents in the parcel. Hence, I am of the view that the Trial Court has misdirected as well as misinterpreted the entire evidence of PW.1 insofar as the role of accused No.4 is concerned. Hence, I find no direct evidence to connect him with the above offence.