IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.01.2010
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
Crl.A.Nos.1581/02, 1497/02, 317/03, 189/05 and 82/06
1.Mohan Appellant/A1 in Cr.A.1581/02
2.S.Renga Reddy Appellant/A2 in Cr.A.189/05
3.Karunakaran Appellant/A3 in Cr.A.317/03
4.Anandan Appellant/A4 in Cr.A.82/05
5.Lalith @ Lalithkumar Appellant/A5 in Cr.A.1497/02
Vs
State by Inspector of Police
Crime Branch CID
Counterfeit Currency Wing
Chennai-2 Respondent in all Cr.As
Prayer:- These Criminal Appeals are filed against the judgement dated 7.10.2002 passed in SC.No.392/1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-V) Chennai, convicting and sentencing the appellant/A1 for the offence under Sections 120B of IPC to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and under Section 489A of IPC to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and under Section 489C of IPC to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and under Section 489C of IPC to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently; convicting and sentencing the Appellant/A2 for the offence under Sections 120B of IPC to undergo three moths Rigorous Imprisonment, under Section 489D of IPC to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment, under Section 489D of IPC to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently; convicting and sentencing the Appellant/A3 for the offence under Sections 120B of IPC to undergo three moths Rigorous Imprisonment, under Section 489A of IPC to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment, under Section 489D of IPC to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and under Section 489A of IPC to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently; convicting and sentencing the Appellant/A4 for the offence under Sections 120B of IPC to undergo three moths Rigorous Imprisonment, under Section 489A of IPC to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment, under Section 489D of IPC to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and under Section 489A of IPC to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently; convicting and sentencing the Appellant/A5 for the offence under Sections 120B of IPC to undergo three moths Rigorous Imprisonment, under Section 489A of IPC to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and under Section 489A of IPC to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently;
For Appellant : Mr.K.Shakar-CrA.1581/02-A1
MrV.Parthiban-CrA.82/06&189/05-A4&2
Mr.V.Gopinath, SC-CrA.1497/02-A5
No Appearance-CrA.317/03-A3
For Respondent : Mr.A.Saravanan, GA
JUDGEMENT
These Criminal Appeals are filed against the judgement dated 7.10.2002 passed in SC.No.392/1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-V) Chennai, convicting and sentencing the appellants/A1 to A5, as stated above.
2. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:-
a. On 20.3.1994 at about 13.00 hours, on information received from the informant, PW.6 the Inspector of Police, CBCID, proceeded to Perambur Barracks Road and Kariappan Road with his police parties and the informant identified A1, who was enquired by PW.6 and seized Mo.1 counterfeit note of two rupee denomination, which have no serial numbers, from the shirt pocket of A1 in the presence of PW.1 K.Thangapandi and one Raja under the cover of seizure mahazar Ex.P1. Based on the confession of A1, the admissible of which is Ex.P4, PW.6, proceeded to the house of A2 at Aminjikarai along with A1 and PW.1 and seized the blocks and ink bottles (Mo.2 and Mo.3) under a house search jabitha Ex.P2, in which PW.2 singed as a witness along with Raja and thereafter, proceeded to A2’s press at Perambur where A3 and A4 were found to be present. PW.6 prepared Ex.P3 search list and took impression of counterfeit currency note Rs.2/- denomination MO.5 and sent an advance intimation to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore under Ex.P5 and on the confession of A2, PW.6 seized MO.4 to 14. PW.3 is the land owner of the building where A3 is running the press and PW.3 signed in the search list Ex.P7 and saw the seizure of blocks, machines, inks and forged blocks of diploma certificates.
b. PW.6 prepared Ex.P6 observation mahazar and Ex.P9 the sketch and came back to the CBCID Office along with A1 to A4 and the parties and registered a case in Cr.No.2/1994 and prepared FIR Ex.P10 against A1 to A5 for offences under Sections 120B, 489A, B, C and D of IPC and 473 of IPC and prepared Exs.P11 and P.12 sketch and enquired the witnesses and the sent A1 to A5 for judicial custody along with Form 98 and Ex.P13, 14 and 15. PW.6 took A3 in police custody and conducted search in A3’s house and went to the shops identified by A3 where he had purchased ink paper, acid etc. and recorded the statements of Manickam, Gopi and Deepak Stanly and after completing investigation, filed a final report against the accused under Sections 120B, 489A, B, C and D of IPC and 473 of IPC of IPC.
3. The case was taken on file in SC.No.392/1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-V) Chennai and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.7} and also relied on Exs.P1 to P20 and fourteen material objects (Mos.1 to 14). On side of the defence, one Venugopal was examined as DW.1 and no document was marked.
4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as totally false.
5. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellants guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in these Criminal Appeals.
6. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material records placed.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellants in Cr.A.No.82/06 and Cr.A.No.189/05 (A4 and A2) Mr.V.Parthiban that the Appellants/A4 & 2 have undergone the full sentence and and he did not want to advance any arguments in the said appeals. The Appellant/A3 in Cr.A.No.317/03 also had undergone the full sentence and there was no appearance by the counsel. The appeals by A1 and A5 alone are contested through their respective counsel.
8. The case of the Prosecution is that on 20.3.1994 at about 13.00 hours, on receipt of information, PW.6 the Inspector of Police, CBCID, proceeded to Perambur Barracks Road and Kariappan Road with his police parties and the informant identified A1 who was enquired by PW.6 and seized MO.1 counterfeit note of two rupee denomination from the shirt pocket of A1 in the presence of PW.1 and one Raja under the cover of seizure mahazar Ex.P1. Based on the confession of A1, PW.6, proceeded to the house of A2 at Aminjikarai along with A1 and PW.1 had seized the blocks and ink bottles (Mo.2 and Mo.3) under a search jabitha Ex.P2 and thereafter, proceeded to A2’s press at Perambur where A3 and A4 were found and on the confession of A2, PW.6 seized MO.4 to 14.
9. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant/A1 Mr.K.Shankar is that there is no evidence to show that there was any conspiracy among the accused and as such the ingredients of the offence under Section 120B of IPC are not made out against the Appellant/A1. The learned counsel would submit that the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 6 are highly improbable in view of material contradictions with regard to time of search and seizure.
10. Section 120A of IPC defines ‘criminal conspiracy’ and it states that when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act, which is not illegal, but by illegal means, then such agreement is designated to be ‘criminal conspiracy’. The agreement may be express or implied. It is to be borne in mind that it is not an ingredient of the offence under this section that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts.
11. In the present case, the Prosecution has relied on the testimony of PW.1 an independent witness, and PW.2 and 6 who are the police officers who conducted search and effected seizure. Their evidence disclosed that on information the Inspector of Police PW.6 along with his party which included PW.2 went to the Barracks Road in the junction of Kariappa Road and the informant identified A1 from whom a two rupee denomination of counterfeit note Mo.1 and 2 were seized in the presence of Pw.1 and one Rajah. On the confession given by A1, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P4, they proceeded to A2’s house and from the drawer of the table in the front room of his house Mo.2 block of two rupee currency notes and MO.3 ink bottles were seized. PW.1 has spoken to the said seizure and his signing as a witness in Ex.P2. It is seen from their evidence that at the instance of A1 and A2, they gone to the press run by A3 and from there Mo.4 blocks and another block MO.7 used for printing fake diploma certificate had been seized. That apart, instruments like hammer, cutter, rod and needle Mo.8 to 11 had been seized under the same Ex.P2. Ex.P9 rough map had been drawn by Pw.6 exhibiting that the printing and cutting machine was attached to the ground.
12. The above said seizure establishes that the instruments and materials seized were used for the process of counterfeiting currency notes. As far as A1 is concerned, a counterfeit denomination indisputably, which did not contain any serial number, was found in his possession and the same had been seized from his pocket. On his confession, A2 and 3 have been identified and blocks used for preparing counterfeit notes have been seized. The above said factors and circumstances would by itself be a sufficient one which would weigh against him in the consideration of the Prosecution evidence led against him. It is no doubt true that there are some contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 regarding the time of search and seizure, but that does not cause any dent on the Prosecution. He has been examined before the court nearly after 8 years after the occurrence and due to lapse of years, these contradictions in his evidence tend to occur. His evidence cannot be viewed with any suspicion, as he has given the reason for being at the spot of seizure. The evidence of PW.2 and 6 cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are the police officers who effected the search and seizure.
13. The fact of possession of counterfeit note in
A1’s pocket and the events that followed after his confession are sufficient to draw an inference that A1 was in possession knowing it to be counterfeit. The Prosecution has established that the counterfeit note was seized from the pocket of A1 and that he had kept the same knowingly thus indicating conscious possession. The evidence of PW.2 & 6 had been corroborated by PW.1 in material particulars and it cannot be held that the evidence of PW.1 is unworthy of credit.
14. In cases of conspiracy, the agreement between the conspirators cannot generally be directly proved, but could be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. A conspiracy need not be established by evidence of an actual agreement between the conspirators and the overtact could raise a presumption of an agreement and the knowledge of the purpose of conspiracy. From the acts and conduct of A1 to A4 and the incriminating seizure effected on their confession, an agreement for illegal object could be inferred in this case.
15. Now coming to the evidence as against A5, the Prosecution has relied upon the testimony of P.3, 4 and 7. The evidence available is that A5 accompanied A3 to the house of PW.3 who is the owner of the premises which was let out to A3. In his cross examination PW.3 asserted that he had let out the house only to A3 and had been dealing only with him in that regard. He has further asserted that he has not seen A5 prior to that and received advance only from A3. Hence, PW.3 has not stated anything incriminating against A5 except saying that A5 accompanied A3 while taking the house on rent. Mere accompaniment will not clothe A5 with any criminality and no attribution could be made against A5 to have assisted A3 for commission of crime.
16. The other piece of evidence available on record is the oral testimony of PW.4 who has deposed that in 1996, A5 came to his house and requested him to help him in relieving him from this case and further told him that he has been implicated by A3 as though he gave financial assistance to A3 at the behest of DW.1 one Vathiyar Vengupal. DW.1 has only deposed that A3 was brought to him by PW.4 and DW.1 requested A5 who is a financier to hep A3 financially. In the cross of PW.4, the close acquaintance of PW.4 with the police (counterfeit wing) has been elicited and more particularly it is brought out in evidence that the investigating officers in this case i.e. Pw.6 and 7 are personally known to PW.4. Significantly PW.4 has not stated about the finance help allegedly rendered by A5 to A3 or the assistance sought by A5 to get himself relieved from the case to anyone and the said version is made only before the court. It is admitted by him that he did not state those facts to the investigating officers at the time of investigation. Though mere acquaintance of PW.4 with the investigating officers cannot discredit his evidence, but in the peculiar circumstances of this case where there is lack of evidence to connect A5 with the crime and to show that A5 was also a member to the conspiracy, the conviction of A5 cannot be sustained.
17. In view of the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that there is credible cogent and reliable evidence as against the Appellants A1, A2, A3 and A4 and they are rightly convicted by the Trial Court and the sentences as imposed do not warrant interference, particularly in view of the seriousness of the crime. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants/A1, A2 A3 and A4 by the Trial Court are confirmed. Accordingly, in so far as the Appellants/A1, A2, A3 and A4 are concerned, Cr.A.Nos.1581/02, 82/06, 189/05 and 317/03 are dismissed. It is seen from the records that the Appellants/A2, A3 and A4 had already undergone the period of sentence and the Appellant/A1 has been enlarged on bail. The bail bond if any executed by the Appellant/A1 shall stand cancelled and The period of sentence already undergone by the Appellant/A1 is ordered to be set off and the concerned court shall take steps to secure the presence of the Appellant/A1 and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
18. In so far as the Appellant in Cr.A.No.1497/02 (A5) is concerned, the appeal stands allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/A5 are set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. It is seen from the records that the Appellant/A5 has been enlarged on bail and the bail bond if
any executed by the Appellant/A5 shall stand terminated and the fine amount if any paid by the Appellant/A5 shall be refunded to him.
Srcm
To:
1.The Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-V) Chennai
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Madras