IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 795 of 2003()
1. VIJAYAN S/O. AYYAPPAN, KLABHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :03/08/2009
O R D E R
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J.
--------------------------------------
CRL.APPEAL 795 OF 2003
--------------------------------------
Dated: AUGUST 3, 2009
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this criminal appeal by the 1st accused is to
the judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc I), Thodupuzha, in
S.C. 314/2001 dated 29.4.2003 convicting the appellant under
sec.489(C) of IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of
three months. He was found not guilty of the charge under
sec.489(B) read with sec.34 of IPC along with the absconding 2nd
accused.
2. The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence
before the lower court was that on May 22, 1990 at about 5 a.m.
while PW.1, the Sub Inspector of Police of Cumbummettu was on
duty at the premises of Koottar SNDP temple in connection with a
festival, the appellant who was conducting a way side sale found
to be in possession of 59 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.10/-
denomination and that thereby committed the offence punishable
under sec.489(C) of IPC. He was also charged under sec.489
CRL.APPEAL 795 OF 2003 2
(B) read with sec.34 of IPC along with the 2nd accused on the
allegation that the 2nd accused handed over the counterfeit
currency notes to the appellant.
3. The committal court (Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Nedumkandam) took cognizance of the case as CP 9/1997.
When the appellant appeared before the committal court, copies
of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to him.
The 2nd accused was absconding. The case against the appellant
was committed to the Court of Sessions, Thodupuzha, from
where it was made over to the trial court for trial and disposal.
The appellant on appearance before the lower court court pleaded
not guilty to a charge under sec.489(B) and 489(C) read with
sec.34 IPC. Pws.1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 and
M.O.1 series and M.O.2 series were marked on the side of the
prosecution before the lower court. When questioned under
sec.313 Cr.P.C. by the lower court, the accused denied having
committed the offence. No defence evidence was adduced.
4. PW.1 is the Sub Inspector of Police of Cumbummettu
who detected the offence. He arrested the appellant on the spot
and prepared Ext.P1 mahazar and seized M.O.1 series
CRL.APPEAL 795 OF 2003 3
counterfeit currency notes. He brought the appellant to the
police station and prepared Ext.P2 FIR and reported the matter
to the Crime Branch C.I.D. Wing of the Police. Pws.2 to 5 are
the independent witnesses to the search and seizure of the MO.1
series counterfeit currency notes from the appellant, who turned
hostile and did not support the prosecution. Pws.6 and 7 are
the investigating officers. The lower court accepted the evidence
adduced on the side of the prosecution and found the appellant
guilty of the offence punishable under sec.489(C) of the IPC and
convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid. He was found
not guilty of the charge under sec.489(B) read with sec.34 IPC
and was acquitted of the said offence.
5. When the appeal came up for hearing, the counsels
appearing for both sides were absent. Therefore the case was
taken up for judgment.
6. The following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving
that the appellant was in possession of MO.1 series
counterfeit currency notes knowing that those
currency notes were forged with intent to use the said
currency notes as genuine currency notes.
CRL.APPEAL 795 OF 2003 4
2. Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant by
the lower court can be sustained?
Points 1 and 2.
7. The main ground urged in the appeal memorandum is
that as the independent witnesses Pws.2 to 5 turned hostile, the
lower court is not justified in believing the evidence of PW.1
alone and that there is no evidence to show that the appellant
knew that MO.1 series notes are counterfeit currency notes. It is
true that there is only the evidence of PW.1, the Sub Inspector of
Police, to prove the incident. It is settled law and is held in
Girja Prasad v. State of M.P. {2007 (4) KLT 99 (SC)} that the
evidence of official witnesses can be relied on if the same is
found reliable and trust worthy. I have gone through the
evidence of PW.1. Nothing was brought out during his cross-
examination to discredit his evidence. No serious discrepancies
or inconsistencies were brought out during his cross-examination.
It was not even suggested during his cross-examination that he
has any prior acquaintance or enmity with the appellant.
CRL.APPEAL 795 OF 2003 5
Therefore the lower court is perfectly justified in coming to the
conclusion that the evidence of PW.1 is trustworthy and reliable
and holding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that
the appellant was found to be in possession of MO.1 series
currency notes as alleged by the prosecution. Ext.P3 certificate
issued from the Currency Notes Press, Nazik, shows that MO.1
series currency notes were counterfeit notes.
8. The next question to be considered is whether the
appellant knew that those currency notes were counterfeit
currency notes. The accused was found in possession of 59
currency notes which itself shows that he knew that those
currency notes were counterfeit notes and that he was keeping
the same with intent to use them as genuine. Further, he was
conducting a shop at festival place which probabilises the case of
the prosecution that he intended to use them as genuine
currency notes. For all these reasons I confirm the finding of the
lower court that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that
the appellant was found to be in possession of MO.1 series
counterfeit currency notes as alleged by the prosecution and that
he knew the same to be counterfeit currency notes with intent to
CRL.APPEAL 795 OF 2003 6
use them as genuine. That being so, the conviction of the
appellant by the lower court under sec.489(C) of IPC has to be
confirmed.
9. As regards the sentence the lower court took a very
lenient view and imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for
one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- with a default sentence of
simple imprisonment for three months. I find no special reason
to reduce the sentence.
In the result, confirming the conviction and sentence of the
appellant by the lower court, the appeal is dismissed. The
appellant shall surrender before the lower court on or before
15.8.2009 to suffer the sentence.
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-