IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3264 of 2008()
1. HARI NARAYANAN, S/O.VELAYUDHA MENON,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CBCID, SIFII,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :22/10/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
Crl.R.P. NO.3264 OF 2008
===========================
Dated this the 22nd day of October,2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in S.C.11/2007 on the
file of Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. He
filed Crl.M.P.2732/2007 for discharging him under
section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned
Sessions Judge as per order dated 28.6.2008
dismissed the application. It is challenged in
this petition filed under section 397 read with
section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
3. Learned senior counsel argued that there is
no material to connect the accused with the fake
notes and learned Sessions Judge should have
discharged the petitioner under section 227 of Code
of Criminal Procedure. It was argued that the
prosecution case is that petitioner had handed over
CRRP 3264/2008 2
fake notes on 23.12.2001 and the notes when
remitted before the Bank the notes were not
accepted and were returned to CW11 and was later
handed over to the Assistant Commissioner of
Customs who forwarded it to the Superintendent of
Police and even if that case is believed, there is
no evidence to prove that the identity of the notes
and therefore learned Sessions Judge was not
justified in dismissing the application.Relying on
the decision of this Court in Raveendran v. State
of Kerala (2007(2) KHC 818) it was argued that
mere possession is not sufficient and there should
be evidence that possession was with the knowledge
that they are counterfeit or fake notes and also
that they were used as genuine and in the absence
of any material to establish these ingredients
Sessions Judge was not justified in proceeding
further without discharging the petitioner.
Learned counsel also relied on the decisions in
Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001(3) KLT
CRRP 3264/2008 3
681) and in Alexander v. C.B.I (2006(2) KLT 240).
4. Learned Public Prosecutor relying on the
statement recorded under section 161 which is
available before the learned Sessions Judge
submitted that if the materials made available
before the learned Sessions Judge stand unrebutted
it cannot be said that there is no material
connecting the accused with the offence and
therefore it is not a case for discharge as
canvassed by the learned senior counsel.
5. Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure
provides for discharge of an accused on
consideration of the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the prosecution if
the Judge considers that there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. At that
stage what is to be looked into is only whether
there is any material which connects the accused
with the offence alleged. As rightly pointed out
by the learned Public Prosecutor if the materials
CRRP 3264/2008 4
produced by the prosecution and are available
before the Sessions Judge stand unrebutted, it
cannot be said that there is no material connecting
the accused with the offences alleged. In such
circumstances, learned Sessions Judge was justified
in not discharging the accused under section 227 of
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006