Judgment : 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 9.6.2004 passed by the Fast Track sessions Court III Bangalore City in SC No.302/03 convicting the appellant for the offence u/Ss. 489(B) and 489(C), IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for offence u/S.489(B), IPC and further sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.2500/- for the offence punishable u/S.489(C), IPC with default clauses. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.12.2002 at about 9.00 a.m. the accused was found in the City Railway Station, Bangalore, near the ticket counter and was trying to circulate fake currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and was in possession of a suitcase containing 146 fake currency notes. Hence he was charged for having committed an offence u/S.489(B) and (C) of IPC. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 5 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and produced M.Os.1 to 3. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, after hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant. Convicted accused has filed this appeal. 3. During the hearing of the case, Sri. M. Rajagopal for M/s. Janarthan and Janardhan Associations appearing for the appellant were absent and hence a non-bailable warrant was issued to the accused on 5.4.2011. The police after receipt of the non-bailable warrant have reported that they have visited the place shown by the accused and also by the police while filing charge-sheet as purporting to be the address of the accused. The police have reported that the accused has left the premises 5 years back and has sold the house in which he was earlier residing. Hence warrant could not be executed against the accused. On 13.4.2001 the finding that accused could not be traced and that his counsel are not appearing, this Court has appointed Sri. Rahul Rai as amicus curiae to the appellant. 4. Heard Sri. Rahul Rai, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned counsel appearing for the State. 5. On 13.4.2001 the finding that accused could not be traced and that his counsel are not appearing, this Court has appointed Sri. Rahul Rai as amicus curiae to the appellant. 4. Heard Sri. Rahul Rai, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned counsel appearing for the State. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the charge framed in this case is very vague and materials regarding the alleged fake notes and the number and nature of seized notes alleged to have been in possession of the accused are not put in the charge framed against the accused. He further submits that out of the 5 witnesses PW1, who is a retired official of the RBI does not state as to under what method he has found the notes sent by the IO as fake notes. He further submits that there is no material to show that the alleged notes after the same seized from the possession of the accused were sealed and that PW2 has found the bundle in a sealed position. The notes seized from the person of the accused are the very same notes which were produced before PW1 for examination is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. The person who is alleged to have carried the notes MO.1 to PW1 has not been examined. Therefore, he submits that the very originality of the notes sent to PW1 is doubtful. He further submits that PW2 is a stock witness and he is found in the Railway Station since 12 years and therefore he is an interested witness supporting the case of the Police. There are no independent witnesses to show that the incident as alleged has happened and therefore he submits that benefit of doubt may be given to the appellant. 6. The learned H.C.G.P. on the other hand submits that the accused has not challenged regarding the originality of the notes seized in the cross-examination of PW1. PW2 is a coolie by profession and therefore his evidence that he was waiting for going to Channapatna his native place cannot be looked at with suspicion. He was present at the time of seizure of notes from the possession of the accused and PW3 in the complaint has stated regarding possession of notes. Under the circumstances, he submits that the order of conviction does not call for interference. 7. He was present at the time of seizure of notes from the possession of the accused and PW3 in the complaint has stated regarding possession of notes. Under the circumstances, he submits that the order of conviction does not call for interference. 7. The proceedings in this case commenced by filing of a suo motu complaint by the Sub-Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Bangalore City Railway Station on 10.10.2002. It is mentioned in the said complaint that on that day at about 9.00 a.m. he received credible information that one person is attempting to circulate fake notes of Rs.100/- and hence he went to the city railway station at the ticketing counter along with the police staff. The accused was found in between ticket counters and was holding a suitcase in one hand and a Rs.100/-note on his right hand and was asking for change. They got suspicious about the behaviour of the accused and he questioned the accused and asked him his name and address. At that time the accused threw the suitcase in his left hand and started running. PW3 the complainant caught hold of the said person and on an enquiry came to know that he is the accused in this case and he is an auto driver and he is residing in Tannery Road. When questioned about the contents of the suit case, he behaved suspiciously and therefore when the suitcase was opened there were 145 Rs.100/-notes which when examined found to be fake. Thereafter, he was arrested by the complainant and a case in Crime No.117/02 was registered against him for offence u/Ss.489(B) and 489(C), IPC. After sending the said notes for investigation by the Reserve Bank of India and after obtaining report from examination, charge-sheet came to be filed. 8. PW1 is the retired officer of the Reserve Bank of India. He has stated that he was working as a treasurer and has knowledge about the original and duplicate notes. He has examined all the 146 notes sent by the Police to him for examination and has issued a letter as per Ext.P1 stating that all the notes are of fake origin and that they do not contain the requisite security thread and there is discrepancy regarding the number of the notes. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not given any reasons for the report given by him. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not given any reasons for the report given by him. So also he has not compared the numbers in the notes to the genuine notes. PW2 Siddaraju is a collie by profession and he has stated that on the date of the incident, he had gone to his relative house in Bangalore and has seen the accused near the railway station. He was standing in queue to purchase the ticket to go to his native place, police came and apprehended the accused and thereafter they called him to the Police Station. They snatched all the money held by the accused and thereafter took the suitcase found with him. 146 notes of Rs.100 denomination were seized by the Police as per Ex.P2 and his signature is at P2(a). In the cross-examination it is elicited that the suitcase was in the hand of the accused and the police were in uniform. He does not know as to which station the said police belong. He has stated that he does not know the name of the person who wrote the mahazar, but he has stated that he was working as an office boy in the auto stand 12 years before the incident at Bangalore. PW3 is the complainant. He has reiterated the version found in the complaint and has also stated that he has seized the articles and sent the FIR as per Ext.P3 and P4. He has stated that on enquiry, the accused told him that the notes were procured by him from one village in Ambur in Tamil Nadu. It is suggested to him that with the help of the unclaimed properties in the Police Station, present charge-sheet was filed. It is also brought out that one Babu was the person who had supplied notes to accused. But he has not investigated about that aspect. PW4 has recorded the statement of certain witnesses being the Sub-Inspector in the Railway Police Station. PW5 was working as the Inspector of Police and after completion of investigation, he has filed the charge-sheet in this case. 9. On a careful consideration of the material on record, it is seen that the material witnesses examined in this case are PWs.2 and 3. PW5 was working as the Inspector of Police and after completion of investigation, he has filed the charge-sheet in this case. 9. On a careful consideration of the material on record, it is seen that the material witnesses examined in this case are PWs.2 and 3. PW2 no where says in his evidence that the notes were sealed after they were seized from the accused nor he speaks about the identification of the seal or identifies signature seizing the notes. PW1 does not speak regarding the bundle of notes having covered with any paper or cloth and whether the same were sealed or were in sealed position. Under the circumstances, there is no clear and cogent evidence on record to show that notes alleged to have been seized from the accused were from same notes which were produced before PW1. Secondly PW1 does not state as to how he acquired knowledge regarding comparison of notes since he was only a treasurer of the Bank. The notes were not subjected to any chemical or electronic test to show that the same were fake or duplicate. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved that the notes sized from the possession of the accused were the same notes which were subjected for examination and further that on examination they were found to be counterfeit notes. The evidence of PW3-the complaint is not corroborated by the evidence of any witnesses. PW2 being a coolie in the railway station, there are no independent witnesses to speak regarding the seizure of the notes from the possession of the accused. 10. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and accordingly he is entitled for an order of acquittal. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction passed by the appellant is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the offence charge against him. Bail bonds if any executed by the appellant is hereby discharged. The amount, if any, in deposit shall be refunded. Appeal allowed.