Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner - Ayyakkannu is accused 2 in S.C.No.33 of 1985 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pudukottai. He, and two others, namely, accused 1 - Gopal and accused 3 -Chinniah alias Chinnar were tried together, accused 1 and 2 facing charges for the alleged offences under Sec.489-B and 489-C, I.P.C and accused 3 for the alleged offence under Sec.489-B read with Sec. 109, I.P.C. 2. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials placed before him, found all of them guilty for various charges framed against them and convicted them there under. Each of accused 1 and 2 was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec.489-C, I.P.C, while accused 1 and 2 were sentenced for the offence under Sec.489-B I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for five years and four years respectively, both the sentences to run concurrently. Accused 3 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Sec.489-B read with Sec.109, I.P.C. 3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused 1 to 3 preferred Crl.A.No.217 of 1985 before the Court of Session, Pudukkottai. Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials available on record and after hearing the arguments of the respective learned Counsel for accused, set aside the conviction and sentence of accused 3 and acquitted him thereof. He confirmed the conviction of accused 1 and 2 for the offences under Sec.489-B and 489-C. While confirming the sentence under Sec.489-C, I.P.C, he would however reduce the sentence for the offence under Sec.489-B, I.P.C. to three years, giving rise to the present revision by accused 2 alone. 4. Learned counsel appearing for. He confirmed the conviction of accused 1 and 2 for the offences under Sec.489-B and 489-C. While confirming the sentence under Sec.489-C, I.P.C, he would however reduce the sentence for the offence under Sec.489-B, I.P.C. to three years, giving rise to the present revision by accused 2 alone. 4. Learned counsel appearing for. the revision petitioner -accused 2 would press for consideration the following two points: (1) The material evidence, available on record can, by no stretch of imagination, be stated to fell in the groove of the offence under Sec.489-B and 489-C, I.P.C, in the sense of constituting the ingredients of those offence, warranting for a conviction and sentence and in this view of the matter, both the courts below committed an error of law on facts calling for interference; and (2) The dual role of an informant and an investigating officer cannot at all be legitimately performed by one and the same individual and if done so, is bound to affect the credibility of the case of the prosecution, in the sense of the same serving as a vitiating factor throwing the case of the prosecution lock, stock and barrel in acquitting the accused. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would however repel those submissions. 6. The first submission of learned counsel for the revision petitioner revolves on the question of the existence or otherwise of the materials, in the shape of evidence, direct or circumstantial, constituting the offences under Secs.489-B and 489-C, I.P.C. The substratum of the case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner - accused 2 had been in possession of fake or counterfeit currency notes knowing or having reason to believe them to be so and had had an active hand in circulation of such notes, in the company of the other accused, about whom, there is no concern now. The factual foundation of the evidence on this aspect of the matter is traceable to the testimony of P. W.2, who would speak about the movements of the revision petitioner, in the company of the other accused -accused 1 in the circulation of the counterfeit or faked currency notes and his evidence had been accepted in toto by both the Court below, without any reservation whatever and such acceptance of his evidence cannot at all be stated to be suffering from the vice or infirmity of perverse appreciation. 7. 7. The other material evidence available on record consists of the testimony of P.W.7, the Investigating Officer, besides P.W.1. P.W.7 would speak to the arrest of the revision petitioner, who on his arrest, gave a voluntary confession containing the valuable admissible piece of information regarding the recovery of the faked currency note bundles from his house, which were kept concealed underneath the paddy stored in gunny bags on the Western portion of his house. The admissible piece of information had been marked as Ex.P-3 and the currency notes have been marked as M.O.3 series. The arrest, confession and recovery had been spoken to, apart from P.W.7, by P.W.1, a witness emerging from independent quarters, in the sense of himself not having any axe to grind against the revision petitioner. Nor was he shown to be having any sort of association or connection with the police, so as to oblige them in foisting a case upon the revision petitioner. As such, there is nothing available on record to reject the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 7 as respects the arrest, confession and consequent recovery of the faked currency notes from the custody and conscious possession of the revision petitioner. It is not as if he was in possession of one or two counterfeit currency notes. But the sordid fact is that he was found in possession of bundles of 100 rupee faked currency notes in abundance. The currency notes so seized had been indisputably found to be forged notes as per the Expert opinion of the Currency Expert, revealed by Ex.P-7. The possession of such currency notes in abundance coupled with his clandestine dealing and circulation in the active company of the other accused -accused 1, as spoken to by the P.W.2, is a clear indication of his conscious possession of such counterfeit currency notes with an intention of circulating them as genuine and in such a situation, to say that there are no materials available or record constituting the offences under Sec.489-B and 489-C of the Indian Indian Indian Penal Code warranting conviction and sentence for those offence cannot at all be expected to commend acceptance at the hands of the court and consequently, the first submission had to fail of no merit. 8. 8. The second submission hinges upon the performance of the dual role of the first informant as well as the investigating officer by one and the same individual, which according to learned counsel for the revision petitioner, is such an infirmity as is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case as a vitiating factor. In support of such a submission, implicit reliance is sought to be placed on the decision in Singaravelu v. State, 1985 L. W. (Crl.) 336 In that case, a person was accused of an offence under Sec.75 of the Madras City Police Act. The occurrence having happened in the very presence of the Sub-Inspector of Police, he happened to lay the first information report and investigated the case himself and filed a final report under Sec.173(2), Cr.P.C. It is in that context, learned judge observed that the complainant himself could not be an investigating officer and in any event, it is an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case, consequence of which was that the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would draw my attention to the very same learned judge revising his opinion subsequently in Crl.A.No.403 of 1983, dated 22.10.1986 (unreported), after making reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan 1976 Crl.L.J. 713 9. In order to appreciate the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, it is but necessary to state the foundational facts of the case. The incident giving rise to the prosecution against the appellant took place within an area in the State of Rajasthan lying within a 10 mile belt along the border of that State adjoining the State of Uttar Pradesh. There was at the material time in force, Rajasthan Food grains (Restrictions on Border Movements) Order, 1959 which imposed a ban on transport of food grains to any place within the area of this 10 mile belt from any place outside that area except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or by any officer authorised by the Government in this behalf. This order was issued under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and any contravention of this provision was punishable under Sec.7 of that Act. This order was issued under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and any contravention of this provision was punishable under Sec.7 of that Act. The prosecution case was that on the night between 13th and 14th November, 1966, Head Constable Ram Singh and four other police constables, viz., Kishan Singh, Fateh Singh, Hira Lal and Sunder Singh all attached to police station, Sewar were on patrolling duty in the area of the 10 mile belt with a view to preventing smuggling of grains from Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh. They were at a place about 5 or 6 furlongs away from the border on the way leading from Village Bilothi in Rajasthan to village Nagla Khoobi in Uttar Pradesh when at about 5 a.m. in the morning of 14th November, 1966 they noticed that a cart driven by two buffaloes was coming from the side of Bilothi and proceeding in the direction of Nagla Khoobi. The cart was loaded with 6 bags of gram weighing about 14 to 15 manuds. One Ram Raj was driving the cart while the appellant was sitting in the cart on the bags of gram. Head Constable Ram Singh and his companions stopped the cart and checked it and on finding that it carried six bags of gram, Head Constable Ram Singh asked the appellant to produce the permit for transport but the appellant could not produce any such permit. The appellant entreated Head Constable Ram Singh to let him go and offered to pay him a bribe of Rs.40 or Rs.50. Head Constable Ram Singh refused to accept the bribe whereupon the appellant took but a bundle of currency notes of Rs.510 from the ‘Antan’ of his dhoti and offered them to Head Constable Ram Singh as bribe. Head Constable Ram Singh declined to accept the bribe offered by the appellant and seized the currency notes of 510 under a seizure memo Ext.P-1 in the presence of the other four police constable. Healso seized the six bags of gram found on the cart under a seizure memo Ex.P-2 and arrested the appellant as well as Ram Raj who was driving to cart. He then prepared a report Ex.P-4 and sent it to the police Station, Sewar with police constable Hira Lal. Healso seized the six bags of gram found on the cart under a seizure memo Ex.P-2 and arrested the appellant as well as Ram Raj who was driving to cart. He then prepared a report Ex.P-4 and sent it to the police Station, Sewar with police constable Hira Lal. The six bags of gram which were seized under a seizure memo, Ex.P-2, were then taken to the police station and weighed there and their weight was noted down under a memo Ex.P-3. Head Constable Ram Singh also lodged a First Information Report Ex.P-5 at the police Station in which he showed himself as the informant or complainant and the appellant and Ram Raj were shown to have committed an offence under Sec.161 of the I.P.C. for offering Rs.510 as bribe to him. Head Constable Ram Singh thereafter investigated the case, but it appears that sometime in the beginning of April, 1967, it came to his notice that he was not authorised to do so and he thereupon forwarded the papers to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 4th April, 1967. The Deputy Superintendent of Police then re-investigated the case and ultimately filed the charge-sheet against the appellant and Ram Raj under Sec.165-A of the Indian Indian Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Special Judge, Bharatpur. The prosecution examined in proof of its case the Head Constable and other police constables who deposed substantially in favour of the prosecution. Believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, learned Special Judge, who tried the case, convicted the accused under Sec.165-A, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer, rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.100 or in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for 15 days. The accused further agitated the matter by preference of an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan. The High Court however agreed with the view taken by the Special Judge and dismissed the appeal. He further agitated the matter before the Supreme Court with the special leave of that Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the appeal with special leave obtained expressed their views in paragraph 5 (at pages 715 and 716), which are as follows: “Now, ordinarily this Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by the trial court and the High Court on an appreciation of. the evidence. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the appeal with special leave obtained expressed their views in paragraph 5 (at pages 715 and 716), which are as follows: “Now, ordinarily this Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by the trial court and the High Court on an appreciation of. the evidence. But this is one of those rare and exceptional cases where we find that several important circumstances have not been taken into account by the trial court and the High Court and that has resulted in serious miscarriage of justicecalling for interference from the Court. We may first refer to a rather disturbing feature of this case. It is indeed such an unusual feature that it is quite surprising that it should have escaped the notice of the trial court and the High Court. Head Constable Ram Singh was the person to whom the offer of bribe we alleged to have been made by the appellant and he was the information or complainant who lodged the first information report for taking action against the appellant. It is difficult to understand how in these circumstances Head Constable Ram Singh could under take investigatione In fact, Head Constable Ram Singh, being an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, was not authorised to investigate the case but we do not attach any importance to that fact, as that may not affect the validity of the conviction. The infirmity which we are pointing out is no an infirmity arising from investigation by an officer not authorised to do so, but an infirmity arising from investigation by a Head Constable who was himself the person to whom the bribe was alleged to have been offered and who lodged the first Information Report as informant or complainant. This is an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case.” 10. From the facts in the Supreme Court, it is rather crystal clear that the Head Constable was himself the person to whom the bribe was alleged to have been offered and who lodged the first information report as an informant or complaint and in such a context, their Lordships observed that is an infirmity, which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case. The Head Constable, first informant, in the context of the situation of the case, is rather a person aggrieved and the fact that such an aggrieved person registered the case and further investigated the matter cannot be stated to be free from suffering the taint of any bias or prejudice against the person proceeded against by him. It is only in such a context, such an observation had been made by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court. 11. Pertinent it is to note at this juncture that an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence may be given by a person aggrieved or by anyone inclusive of a Station House Officer acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. If a cognizable offence is committed on the very face of a Station House Officer, there is no legal prohibition for him to act as the first informant and lay the information setting the wheels of law in motion and himself take up the further investigation of the case. 12. As such, there is no prohibition for a police officer life P.W.7 to lay first information and investigating the case himself and file a final report under Sec.173(2), Cr.P.C. P.W.7, on the facts of this case, cannot at all be construed to be a person really aggrieved as the Head Constable of the Supreme Court case, to whom offer of bribe had been made. He, being a public servant, acted in accordance with law in arresting the revision petitioner, recording his confessional statement leading to the recovery of the counterfeit currency notes from his house, registering the ease and filing a final report. In such state of affairs it cannot be stated that the investigation of this case by P.W.7, who happens to be the first informant, is bound to affect the credibility of the prosecution case. As such, this submission also prosecution case. As such, this submission also bristles next to nothing. 13. In view of my finding on the above two submissions, raised by learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it goes without saying that there is no mis-or-mal-appreciation of the evidence on record by both the courts below. 14. As such, this submission also prosecution case. As such, this submission also bristles next to nothing. 13. In view of my finding on the above two submissions, raised by learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it goes without saying that there is no mis-or-mal-appreciation of the evidence on record by both the courts below. 14. Regarding the sentence, having regard to the gravity of the offences, having tremendous influence in tilting the economic structure of this country, I do not think that the sentence, as had been imposed by the appellate Court on the revision petitioner, is excessive or harsh calling for interference. 15. As such, the revision deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.