Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Sessions Court after hearing the arguments advanced by both the prosecution and the accused, framed the points that arose for consideration and thereby by its order dated 26.07.2010 in S.C.No.63/2008 convicted Accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences alleged and sentenced them as aforesaid.

Subsequent to committing the case in respect of Accused Nos.2 to 4 in S.C.No.63/2008, a split up charge sheet was filed against Accused No.1 / Santhosh in S.C.No.51/2010. Charges were framed against accused Santhosh in S.C.No.51/2010, wherein he did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Subsequent to framing of charges, the prosecution in order to establish the guilt against him, examined in all 11 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11 and got marked several documents as Exhibits P1 to P48 apart from marking material objects MO-1 to MO-11. Also, portions of his statement were got marked as Exhibit D1(a). Thereafter, the accused Santhosh was examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. But however, he did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court after hearing the arguments advanced by both the prosecution and the accused, framed the points that arose for consideration and thereby convicted Accused No.1 as well by its order dated 8.8.2011 in S.C.No.51/2010 for the offences alleged and sentenced him as aforesaid.

6. It is these two judgments of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.63/2008 (in respect of Accused Nos.2 to 4) and S.C.No.51/2010 (in respect of Accused Santhosh against whom the charge-sheet was split up) which are under challenge in these appeals by the appellants urging various grounds.

7. Heard the learned Senior counsel Shri Hashmath Pasha appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.880./2010 (Accused Nos.2 and 3), the learned counsel Smt. Haleema Ameen appearing for Shri Vishwajith Shetty, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.869/2010 (Accused No.4) and for the appellant in Crl.A.872/2011 (Accused No.1), the learned counsel Shri V.S. Hegde, State Public Prosecutor-2 and the learned HCGP Shri M. Divakar Maddur for the State.

16. PW.7 - Syed Mohammed was subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution wherein he was working in DRI Office at Cochin since three years. But on 27.10.2009, the Immigration Officer in Cochin, secured passport of Santosh @ Santosh Shetty and the same was handed over to PW.7. It is marked as Ex.P45. Subsequently at the request of officers in DRI, Mangalore the Immigration Officer in Cochin Air port apprehended Santhosh @ Santhosh Shetty and thereafter, the passport was handed over to him. Thereafter, he gave information to the office of DRI, Mangalore telephonically. On the next date, the police officers in Mangalore had rushed to the office of PW.7 and took the accused in their custody. Ex.P44 passport of Santosh @ Santosh Shetty reveals that he traveled from UAE to Cochin on 26.10.2009. The said accused had returned to UAE from India on 14.10.2006 as per the contents revealed in Ex.P44. In the cross- examination he has specifically stated that Police officers in Mangalore did not make any enquiry and did not record his statement. But he cannot say whether Accused - Santhosh @ Santhosh Shetty was staying in India or UAE in the year 2005. He did not make any enquiry in relation to Ex.P45 belonging to Santosh @ Santosh shetty, but the said passport has been given to him on 25.04.2006. Therefore, he cannot say prior to the year 2006 in which country the accused was staying. Subsequently, he has stated that he did not know prior to the year 2006, this accused did not proceed from India. He did not make any statement or any record relating to immigration officer at Cochin had handed over this to the Police officer of Mangalore on the next day and also production of Ex.P45 - passport relating to this accused are the vital documents and also vital evidence in respect of this accused was also involved in a case registered in Crime No.38/2008 and this accused having role in respect of forwarding the parcel containing MOs.7 to 11, the Indian fake currency notes amounting to Rupees two lakhs and also the contents of M.O.2 to 6 in M.O.1 card board box which said to have been received by the XPS courier, Mangalore, wherein PW.1 - Madhusudhan Bhat on receipt of credible information about accused Nos.1 and 2 and he formed a team consisting the official witnesses including the officer of DRI and also panch witnesses and drew the mahazar at Ex.P1 and seized MO.7 to 11 which are the fake currency notes found in a separate box which was found beneath the card board box. This vital evidence has not been considered by the trial Court, but erroneously has come to the conclusion by believing the evidence of PW.1 but simply because the mahazar was drawn and MOs.7 to 11 fake currency notes were seized and so also subjected to test by the RBI officer, but Ex.P11 complaint was filed by the PW.1 Madhusudhan Bhat before the Kavoor Police station on 20.03.2008, based upon his complaint the case in Crime No.38/2008 came to be registered and thereafter, Sri. Anantha Padmanabha, PSI of Kavoor Police Station was subjected to examination as PW.22 in S.C.No.63/2008 and PW.10 in SC No.51/2010 in respect of split up charge sheet filed against the accused namely Santosh @ Santosh Shetty. The fake currency notes at MOs.7 to 11 were produced by the said Madhusudhan Bhat in a sealed cover before the PSI of Kavoor Police Station after receipt of notice from him for production of said material documents and so also fake currency notes as per MOs. 7 to 11. But the same was seized in the presence of PW.1 -

Madhusudhan Bhat alone and the sealed cover said to be containing MOs.7 to 11 was seized by securing panch witnesses or even in the presence of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and inclusive of accused - Santosh @ Santosh Shetty in respect of case in S.C.No.63/2008 and S.C.No.51/2010 as wherein the split up charge sheet has been laid against the aforesaid accused by the PSI of Kavoor Police Station. But in respect of S.C.No.51/2010, Ex.P12 - spot mahazar was conducted by the I.O is in the presence of PW.1 - Madhusudhan Bhat alone and he did not even secure the accused person in order to confirm the contents at Ex.P12. But very cleverly said Madhusudhan Bhat had drawn the seizure mahazar at Ex.P1 and secured the signatures of accused Nos.2 and 3 on Ex.P1. This material contradiction on the part of the prosecution has not been appreciated by the trial court.