IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2o"'DAy or ocroaaa, 2oo3tf *_
BEFORE: I
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. pAc3H§PuR:j~t
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1fiD7jGE:2533":x tI*x'"'
BETWEEN:
Meera Mohiddin,
Sfo. Tippu Sultan,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at Ambedkarnagar,
Madhurai Town, _ 1 =; .vjtx -~,'
Tamilnadu. ,'*;t~ 1 : v~ =At»--«-,... A9PELLANT
[By Sri. Pra$a§n§"5;P{;@Afii¢fist$utiae.}
AND:
State by ?c;i¢e Ia§fi§ct6r;"£
Mahalakshmi'Layout.Po1ice;
Police Stat1on,_ ' ' '
$anga1n§e.* "»¢ V ... RESPONDENT
°.;sy's§1,iA,vgRamakr1shna, HCGP.}
\b'i:'!r
This,Crl;'Appeal is filed u/Section 374 Cr.P.C.
byw the .Adyocate for the appellant against the
"*?Judgment di. 07.08.2003 passed by the XXIII Addl.
1 xCtflb &vS.J., Bangalore City, in S.C. Nc.113/2083,
Vt'v convinaing the appellantwacoused for the offences
Uxupln/S5. 489~B and Sec. é89~C of IPC and sentencing
* him tb undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000~00 for the offence punishable u/S. 489-B of
tt'»IBC. I.D., to undergo S.I. for 6 months and further
u_" sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000-~00 for the offence p/u/S.
2
489-C of IPC I.D., to undergo S.I. for 6 months.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
This Crl. Appeal coming on for Final Heating,
this day the Court delivered the following: »_ ,3 u ._
JUDGEMENT
The appellant has filed”ufltnis<Elappeal;K
challenging the Judgment and ckaé:_"con§;¢t1ng"{§:a*,
for the offence punishable unde; sé¢:ion§<4é9tB7 and l
(C) IPC on a trial ,held obyd the, Sessiensi Judge,
Bangalore City. ' l l 'V
2. The facts.__rel.’eiiant f’o;§—-_g_:h§-.- – se of this
appeal are as nnde;£V at
It is op”22}9é;Q0§§ at about 8.00 a.m., when
‘E.Ws.1, and 4 Hwete «on round, received credible
“ninformaLien_. that in R.M.C.Yard near Rangappa
Vegeta§le*dMandi;” a person was in possession of
Vdcounterfeit’notes of Rs.100~00 denomination and he
“”n was t:ying to put them in circulation. Immediately,
«’P£Ws;1_ and 4 along with the attesting” witnesses-
R”9;3,3 and another went to the said place and saw the
Vd*.aecused was handing over the counterfeit notes to
V P.W.2. Immediately, they” apprehended the accused
and on arrest, made a personal search in the
7V/
4
documents Ex5.P1 to P8 and M.0s.l and 2. H The
statement of the accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. He has taken the defence§dofChtct%1l.
denial and has not led any defence evidence; cTh§u.
Trial Court on appreciation [of w§he’2é§iden¢edrQn’
record, convicted the appellantA for [the “5f£¢fi¢e”x_
under Sections 489(3) and (5; IPC and seetégpée him
to undergo R.I. for 3 ygara for egg: of the offences
and ordered to pay Vfifiei aft R;}2,ooo~oo and
Rs.1,000–00 reegectivelf and 15 defaelt to undergo
imprisonment “tern ggx[r§ent§5f fior each of the
offencesrv …. __Egdrleyed,j§§r,§na”fconviction and the
sentence; the accfieed bee afiproached this Court in
appeal.
3ft I have heard the learned amicus curiae for
the deppellant Wand also the learned Government
V Pleader;
W. 4. The point that arises for my consideration
Whether the Judgment and Grder of
conviction of the appellant for the
offence under sections 489(8) and (C)
/*
E>é”mm
11
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed. The confiictidefamda
the sentence on the appellant for the offence undef”
Sections 489(8) and {C} IPC is coafirmedIg*efiejr;i;i
Courfi is directed to secure the *presence: of: the W
accused to undergo the senfefice, ifahe-flee already
not undergone the sentence cfdexed by if: dVThe fee
of the amicus curiae 15 fified at gs sgooomoo and the
State shall pay the sa@eg 1
Sd/~
Iudge
,Ksm* V”i…. . “e- ….. We