Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 335 (KER)

Karunakaran Nadar v. State

2000-06-29

D.SREEDEVI

body2000
Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C. No. 89/95 convicting and sentencing the appellant. The appellant herein is the accused. 2. The above case was charge sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police CBCID (CSF Counterfeit Squad), Thrivandrum against the accused for the offence under Section 489, IPC. The prosecution case in brief is this : On 11-10-1987 the accused was found in possession of 15 forged currency notes of 20 denomination in his house by name Vandipura Naduvila Veedu at Keezhaikonam, Nellanadu Muri in Nellanadu Village. On receiving a secret information regarding the offence, the S.I. of Police, Venjarammoodu went to the house of the accused along with police party and conducted search of the house of the accused and MO. 1 series, the currency notes were found on the cash table of the accused. 3. The S.I. of Police seized the currency notes and arrested the accused and registered the case as Crime No 226/87. The case was transferred to CBCID (CFS) Trivandrum. After completing the investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police laid charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Attingal, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed charge for an offence punishable under Section 489C, IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. After taking evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 489, IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for 7 years. Against the said order, this appeal has been filed by the accused. 4. Mr. R. Bindu, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the judgment of the Court below is vitiated by illegality and irregularity. Ext. P2 is the search list prepared by the S.I. of Police. Two attesting witnesses are PWs 1 and 2. On receiving a secret information that the accused is in possession of counterfeit currency notes and is using the same as genuine, the S.I. of Police went to the house of the accused and conducted search of the house and seized MO. 1 series currency notes from the cash table. PW 1 is the attestor to the search list Ext. P2. He turned hostile to the prosecution. According to PW 1, the accused is a coolie. But, according to the prosecution, the accused is conducting, a provision shop. 1 series currency notes from the cash table. PW 1 is the attestor to the search list Ext. P2. He turned hostile to the prosecution. According to PW 1, the accused is a coolie. But, according to the prosecution, the accused is conducting, a provision shop. PW 1 is a coconut climber. He has even denied his signature in Ext. P2. 5. The case of PW 1 is that he was invited to the police station and was compelled to put his signature in Ext. P2. PW 2, who is also an attesting witness, is a quarry worker. He also turned hostile to the prosecution. Eventhough, he has admitted his signature in Ext. P2, his case is that he was also invited to the police station and was asked to put his signature in Ext. P2. The Court below accepted the testimony of PW 2 as he has admitted his signature in Ext. P2 assuming that he has put his signature at the house of the accused while the alleged seizure was made. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the attesting witnesses were there at the time of search and that they put their signature in the seizure mahazar witnessing the search, the evidence of PW 2 cannot be accepted. 6. The finding of the Court below that Ext. P2 search list was prepared legally and that it was properly proved is not legal and proper. The prosecution was based solely on Ext. P2 search list. In order to attract Section 489 C, IPC the prosecution has to establish that the accused is in possession of forged counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. In order to constitute offences under Section 489 C the essential ingredients are : (i) There must be a forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note; (ii) The accused must be in possession of it; (iii) The accused must know or has reason to believe that such note is a forged or counterfeit one; (iv) The accused must intend to use it as genuine or that it may be used as genuine. All the ingredients of the offence must exit. The mere possession of forged notes is not sufficient to constitute the offence. The other ingredients also must exist. viz., it must be proved that the accused had knowledge of the forged or counterfeit nature of the note. All the ingredients of the offence must exit. The mere possession of forged notes is not sufficient to constitute the offence. The other ingredients also must exist. viz., it must be proved that the accused had knowledge of the forged or counterfeit nature of the note. It is also submitted for the appellant that PW 4 has not produced the statement of the witnesses and they were also not cited as the witnesses to the prosecution. Even the person who was present at the time of alleged search was also not examined. 7. I perused the MO. 1 series currency notes. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that these notes are only fancy notes. On a mere look at the notes it can be seen that these are fancy notes. In all the Indian currency notes what is noted is Reserve Bank of India. But in these notes what is noted is Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, it is clear from the notes itself that it is not a forged or counterfeit currency. Where the currency notes in possession of the accused are found to be of such a nature that a mere look at them would not convince any person of average intelligence that they are counterfeit notes, the presumption that the notes in his possession were counterfeit cannot be drawn. There is also nothing to show that he had any intention to use the same as genuine. The prosecution could not bring out any transaction of the accused with any other person. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused was intending to use the same as genuine. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 489-C, IPC. The prosecution has to prove the mens rea required by Section 489C. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge are illegal and improper and as such they are liable to be set aside. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below are hereby set aside. Release the accused forthwith, if not required for any other case. Appeal allowed.