Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The appellants in Crl.Appeal No.2027/2004 are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Session Case No.17/2003 on the files of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The appellants in Crl.Appeal Nos.2080/2004 and 2079/2004 are the accused Nos.6 and 7 in the above case. The above case is chargesheeted by the Detective Inspector, CBCID, Counterfeiting Squad, Ernakulam, against 13 accused including the appellants in these Crl. Appeals. Accused No.13 was absconding. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were also absconding originally and subsequently they appeared and the learned Sessions Judge proceeded against the accused Nos. 1 to 12 together. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 489A to 489D read with Section 120B IPC and also under Section 120B IPC(hereinafter the appellants are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the trial court).

3. To substantiate the case, prosecution examined PW1to PW25. Exhibits P1 to P50 are the exhibits marked by the prosecution. Ext.D1 is marked as an exhibit on the side of the defence. MO1 to MO49 are the material objects.

4. After going through the evidence and documents, the learned Sessions Judge found that accused Nos.1 to 7 are guilty under Sections 489A, 489C and 489D read with Section 120B IPC and also for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. They are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 489B IPC. The accused No.8 was not found guilty and he was acquitted. Accused Nos.1 to 7 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each for the offence punishable under Sections 489A, 489C and 489D read with 120B IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. All the accused are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 489A. In default of payment of fine, the accused are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The court ordered that the substantive sentence will run concurrently. The set off was also ordered. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, these appeals are filed by accused Nos.1 to 7.

5. Heard the counsel for the appellants and the Public Prosecutor.

6. The counsel for the appellants submitted that, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted in toto, no offence under Sections 489A, 489C and 489D read with Section 120B IPC are made out in this case. The counsel submitted that, there is only the evidence of PW19 and PW20 police officials, they are the detecting officer and his subordinate. All the witnesses including the alleged independent witness to the seizure turned hostile. The learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellants, based on the evidence of PW19 and PW20 to the effect that the appellants were present at the time of seizure of the materials from the place, where the search is conducted. According to the counsel, PW21 the investigating officer in this case deposed before the court that, when he went there, he did not see accused Nos.1 to 8 in the place from where the seizure was effected. So according to the counsel, there is contradictory version regarding the presence of accused at the place from where the seizure is conducted. On one side, PW19 and PW20 who are the detecting officer and the Police Constable to the effect that, accused Nos.1 to 8 were present at the place from where the alleged seizure is effected. On the other hand, PW21, the detecting officer, CBCID, Counterfeit Squad deposed that, when he reached the place from where the seizure was effected, he did not see the presence of the accused at the place of seizure. The counsel for the appellants submitted that, in the light of the contradictory version regarding the presence of the accused at the place of seizure from the official witness itself, the same is not believable. Except this, there is absolutely no evidence to connect accused Nos.1 to 8 in this case.