JUDGMENT : The second and fourth accused in S.C.No.223 of 2001 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam filed this appeal. When this appeal came up for consideration, on an earlier occasion, there was no representation to the appellants, and hence notice was issued to them. Notice issued to the first appellant was returned with an endorsement "not known," and notice issued to the second appellant was returned with an endorsement "addressee deceased." Therefore, on 6.2.2020 this court passed the following order: “This appeal is filed by accused Nos.2 and 4 as appellants 1 and 2. Notice to 1st appellant was returned with endorsement 'not known' and to the 2nd appellant with endorsement “addressee deceased” Legal heirs of the 2nd appellant have not come forward to proceed with the prosecution further. Since the 2nd appellant is no more, appeal as against him is abated. Notice to 1st appellant having been returned with endorsement 'not known', Registry shall issue fresh notice to him through SHO of Police station within the jurisdiction of which the 1st appellant is residing.” 2. After that, when the matter came up for consideration on 21.5.2020, the first appellant appeared through a counsel. Hence, the service to the 1st appellant is complete. Today the appeal heard finally. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB CID, Kottayam filed a final report against 19 accused alleging offences under Section 489(A), (C) and (D) of the Indian Penal Code. Sixteen accused faced trial, and the trial court convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 and acquitted accused Nos.5 to 16. ('The original accused' referred in this judgment means the accused in the police charge sheet) Accused No.1 filed Crl.A No.653 of 2004 and accused No.3 filed Crl.A No.691 of 2004 before this Court. The other accused filed the present appeal, which is numbered as Crl.A No.658 of 2004. Crl.A No.653 of 2004 was closed on 20.10.2017 as abated because the first accused died on 11.1.2015. The appeal filed by the third accused, which is numbered as Crl.A No.691 of 2004 was also closed as abated because the third accused also died. That appeal was closed on 11.11.2019. As stated earlier, the fourth accused also died, and his case was also abated. Now the appeal filed by the second accused is pending before this court. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance with their rank before the trial court). 4. That appeal was closed on 11.11.2019. As stated earlier, the fourth accused also died, and his case was also abated. Now the appeal filed by the second accused is pending before this court. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance with their rank before the trial court). 4. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the accused in furtherance of their common intention to manufacture, possess, and trafficking currency notes made a conspiracy to do so, from the month of November 1990 to 3rd October 1991, from house No.VIII/64 of Pampady village with name Chennampally house wherein the first accused was residing. It was with the cooperation and under the leadership of the original tenth accused in the charge sheet who is ninth accused in this case. The conspiracy was made from the houses of accused Nos.4 and 1 and also at Premier Tourist Home, Ernakulam, Obroy Hotel at Ernakulam. As a result of this conspiracy, accused Nos.2, 4 and 12 in the original charge sheet and 11 in the present case with other accused spent money and after that accused Nos.2, 5 and 10th in the original charge sheet and ninth accused in this case with other accused went to Gunasundari Printers at Vannarpetta and purchased an offset printing press from CW28. After that, it was established in the house of nineteenth accused in the original charge with the connivance of the other accused in the case and manufactured ten rupee fake notes worth more than Rs.12 lakhs. Further case is that it is circulated under the instruction of original tenth accused in the charge sheet and ninth accused herein by accused Nos.2, 3, 16th accused in the original charge sheet and 15th accused in this case and 17th accused to 19th accused in the original charge sheet (19th accused tried as 16th accused in this case) and thereby all of them have committed the above offences. This is the crux of the prosecution case. 5. Altogether there were 19 accused. Some of the accused absconded, and their case was split up. Original accused No.18 died. Therefore, the trial court rearranged the rank of the accused, and altogether 16 accused faced trial. CBCID charge-sheeted the accused alleging the offences punishable under Section 489 A, C, and D, Section 120B r/w Section 34 IPC. 6. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW54. Original accused No.18 died. Therefore, the trial court rearranged the rank of the accused, and altogether 16 accused faced trial. CBCID charge-sheeted the accused alleging the offences punishable under Section 489 A, C, and D, Section 120B r/w Section 34 IPC. 6. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW54. Exts.P1 to P158 are the exhibits marked on the side of the prosecution. Exts.D1 to D10 are the exhibits marked on the side of the defence. Ext.X1 and X2(a), C1, and C2 are the court exhibits. MO1 to MO173 are the material objects marked by the prosecution in this case. 7. After going through the evidence and the documents, the trial court found that the accused Nos.5 to 16 has not committed the offence and they are acquitted. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489A, C and D r/w Section 34 IPC. Separate sentence was imposed under Section 489A, C and D r/w 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this appeal is filed. 8. Heard Advocate Sri. Nireesh Mathew for the appellants and Sri. B. Jayasurya, the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that even if the entire evidence is accepted, no offence under Section 489 A, C, and D is made out in this case. The counsel submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is highly suspicious and unbelievable. According to the counsel, even if the evidence of prosecution witnesses are accepted, the presence of the second accused is not proved by the prosecution. The counsel also submitted that the only evidence available against the second accused is that of the oral evidence of PW51, the detecting officer, and Ext.P1 search list. According to the counsel, even the officers, who accompanied PW51 and who were present at the time of search has no case that the second accused was present at the time of the alleged seizure. The counsel also submitted that PW1 and PW3, the independent witness turned hostile to the prosecution. According to the counsel, the evidence of PW2 also does not implicate the second accused. The counsel has taken me through the evidence of DW1 and DW2 and two paper reports, which are marked as Exts.D4 and D5. According to the counsel, the above evidence will improbabilise the entire prosecution case. According to the counsel, the evidence of PW2 also does not implicate the second accused. The counsel has taken me through the evidence of DW1 and DW2 and two paper reports, which are marked as Exts.D4 and D5. According to the counsel, the above evidence will improbabilise the entire prosecution case. The counsel submitted that the second accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor supports the conviction and sentence of the second accused. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW51 along with Ext.P1 seizure mahazar would prove the presence of the second accused. He also contended that PW51 clearly stated that second accused was engaged in the business of counterfeiting. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor even if, we neglect the other evidence, the evidence of PW51 which is corroborated by the evidence of PW2 along with the contemporaneous record Ext.P1 will show that the second accused committed the offence. His presence is proved. In such circumstances, the prosecutor submitted that, this court may not interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. 11. The point for consideration, in this appeal, is whether the second accused committed the offence under Section 489A, C and D of IPC. 12. The alleged seizure, in this case, happened about 29 years back. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, in this case, can be narrated like this: On 3.10.91 at about 4 p.m. PW51 Sr.K.T. Michael, then Superintendent of Police Crime Branch, Kottayam received secret information that processes of manufacturing fake notes were being carried out from the house of first accused Manoj at Pampady. So immediately, he sent Ext.P92 search memo to court for the purpose of searching that house and went to that house along with PW52 DYSP Emmanuel, PW43 Circle Inspector Sri.Thampan, Head Constables Sri. Unni, Sri. Ramachadran Nair and other police constables. Thereafter he conducted a search of the house bearing No.VIII/64 of Pampady panchayat in the presence of PW1 to 3. According to him, he had seen the first accused Manoj, second accused Benny, and third accused Sukumaran sitting in one of the rooms in the house and doing the finishing process of the fake notes. So he seized the articles found there in the presence of PWs 1 to 3 as per Ext.P1 search list. According to him, he had seen the first accused Manoj, second accused Benny, and third accused Sukumaran sitting in one of the rooms in the house and doing the finishing process of the fake notes. So he seized the articles found there in the presence of PWs 1 to 3 as per Ext.P1 search list. He had seized M.O.59 series to M.O.108 series of ten rupee fake notes of different serial Numbers kept in different bundles and M.O.109 series to M.O.118 series of paper sheets, MO119 and MO120 series of paper bundles, MO121 soiled white cloth and MO122 another soiled cloth, MO123 and MO124 iron boxes, MO125 to 127 trimmers, MO128 and MO129 two other trimmers and MO130 a gunny bag and MO131 series, MO132 series, MO133 series of genuine notes of different denominations, MO37 fevicol tin of 5 kg., MO38 fevicol tin of 2 kg., MO135 card board box, MO136 paper with prints of notes and MO137 series white paper bundle as per Ext.P1 seizure mahazar from the house No.VIII/64 of Pampady panchayat. The search started at 5 pm. of 3.10.91 and was completed at 4.10.1991 at 4 p.m. Thereafter he came to Pampady Police station and registered Ext.P94 first information report under Section 489 (A), (c) and (D) r/w Section 34 IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3 alone. After that, on the way to his office he went to the place of occurrence again and questioned the witnesses. He questioned accused Nos. 1 to 3 from his office. When he questioned the second accused, who is the appellant, in this case, he had told that he would show the place where the press is established and also show Reji George, if he was taken to Karimkunnam. Ext.P2(a) is the confession statement of the second accused. 13. Accordingly, on 5.10.1991, he went to Karimkunam along with second accused on the basis of the information given by him and as led by him. On the way to Karimkunnam as shown by second accused he had identified fourth accused in front of private bus stand at Pala and arrested him from there. It is the further case of the prosecution that when he questioned him, he had given Ext.P3(a) and (b) statements regarding the place where the press and other things were kept. He came to Urumbil house in Karimkunnam along with accused Nos. 2 and 4 with the police party. It is the further case of the prosecution that when he questioned him, he had given Ext.P3(a) and (b) statements regarding the place where the press and other things were kept. He came to Urumbil house in Karimkunnam along with accused Nos. 2 and 4 with the police party. Fourth accused took the key of the shed, which was situated on the side of the new house constructed in the property by the 16th accused and handed over the same to second accused, and using that key second accused opened the shed and showed the press established in the shed. Thereafter he found that there was unauthorised electric connection from the Urumbil house to the newly constructed house and also to that shed. So he gave intimation to PW4, Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Thodupuzha and he came there along with PW8 Sreekumar, Oversear of Thodupuzha Electrical Major Section. He also detected the unauthorised connection from consumer No.80 which relates to Urumbil House in the name of 16th accused, and he was engaged in taking current from consumer No.80 to the newly constructed house and the shed. On the basis of the statement given by second accused, PW51 seized MO2 press, MO5 series five rollers of the press, MO6 series five bottles of printing ink, MO7 series five empty bottles of printing ink, MO8 one packet of hypo, MO9 plastic container with processing development liquid, MO10 plastic tin used to keep reducing acid etc. 14. All these material objects were seized as per Ext.P2 seizure mahazar in the presence of PW4, PW6 and PW43. PW43 is the Detective Inspector who was present along with PW51 at that time. PW6 is the owner of Southern Printers at Kottayam, and he came there as instructed by the Superintendent, Crime Branch, Kottayam, for the purpose of examining the press. But in the court, he denied having seen any of the accused persons at that place. So he was declared hostile, but he admitted his signature in Ext.P2 mahazar, and he had also identified MO2 as the press examined by him from the shed at Karinkunnam in the property of 16th accused. But in the court, he denied having seen any of the accused persons at that place. So he was declared hostile, but he admitted his signature in Ext.P2 mahazar, and he had also identified MO2 as the press examined by him from the shed at Karinkunnam in the property of 16th accused. Based on Exts.P3 (a) and P3(b) statements given by the 4th accused, PW51 had seized MO47 series to MO52 series sheets containing the prints of ten rupees notes on either side or double side with number or without number and MO53 plastic sack, MO54 Old cements sack, MO55 and MO56 two plastic covers, MO57 series aluminium sheets nine prints of ten rupee notes in damaged condition, MO58 sack with waste materials of notes and other things weighing 25 kg as per Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. After that, he sent accused Nos.1 to 4 to court along with remand report through the Circle Inspector of Police. Thereafter, the custody of the accused was obtained as per Ext.D3. Subsequently, he gave Ext.P95 report to add the name of the 4th accused also in the accused column. He had given Ext.P95 report correcting the mistake in the value of the notes seized as mentioned in Ext.P94. He had sent the articles seized by him as per Exts.P2 and P3 to court along with Exts.P97 and P98 property lists. He had sent the articles seized as per Ext.P1 to court along with Ext.P93 property list. The further investigation in this case was conducted by PW52 Dy.S.P., Samuel. PW54 submitted the final report in this case. This is the prosecution evidence available in this case. 15. From the prosecution evidence, if we read the evidence of PW51 along with Ext.P1 seizure mahazar, there is evidence to show that the second accused was present at the time of the alleged seizure. PW51 clearly deposed that accused Nos.1 to 3 were present on 3.10.1991 when they searched house No.8/64 of Pambadi Village with name Chennampalli house where the first accused is alleged to be residing. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that except the above version of PW51 along with an entry in Ext.P1 search list, there is absolutely no other evidence to show that the second accused was present at the time of search and seizure. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that except the above version of PW51 along with an entry in Ext.P1 search list, there is absolutely no other evidence to show that the second accused was present at the time of search and seizure. The counsel also submitted that it is a case in which there is no arrest memo marked to prove the arrest of the second accused. The counsel has taken me through the evidence of PW52, the Dy.S.P., and PW43, the Circle Inspector. They have no case that the second accused was present at the time of the alleged seizure, and they have no case that the second accused was taken into custody from the place of occurrence. Even the trial Judge observed that there is evidence of PW51 alone regarding the presence of second accused. It is true that in Ext.P1 seizure mahazar, it is stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 are engaged in the process of manufacturing counterfeit notes. When PW51 was cross examined, this portion was put to him. He stated that the second accused was touching the cutting machine, and that is why he stated like that. It is to be noted that the accused had got a definite case before the trial court that he was arrested on 2.10.1991 when he went to the police station in search of the fourth accused. His case is a total denial of the alleged search, seizure, and arrest by the detecting officer. This defence case has to be looked into along with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is true that PW51 clearly deposed about the presence of the second accused at the time of seizure. It is also clear that in Ext.P1 search list, it is clearly stated that the second accused was present at the time of search. If we go through the evidence of PW53 and PW42, who are officers accompanying PW51, they have no case that the second accused was present at the time of search and seizure of the property as per Ext.P1 search list. PW52, Dy.S.P., deposed that he assisted PW51 in detecting the offence. PW43, who is the Circle Inspector, deposed that he assisted in investigating the case. They have no case that the second accused was present at the time of the search and seizure as per Ext.P1. PW52, Dy.S.P., deposed that he assisted PW51 in detecting the offence. PW43, who is the Circle Inspector, deposed that he assisted in investigating the case. They have no case that the second accused was present at the time of the search and seizure as per Ext.P1. The prosecutor has not taken any steps to bring evidence from these witnesses to the effect that the second accused was present at the time of search and seizure. In addition to that, there is the evidence of PW2, the alleged independent witness. If we go through the evidence of PW2, the independent witness, it is clear that he has no case that the second accused was present at the time of search and seizure. He only says about the presence of the first accused. He is not a witness declared as hostile by the prosecution. He deposed that he was present through out the search and also deposed that he went out only for attending a phone call. But PW2, the independent witness, has no case that the second accused was present at the time. This part of the evidence is not challenged by the prosecution. PW2 is not a hostile witness. 17. Therefore, the only evidence to show the presence of the second accused at the time of search and seizure is the solitary evidence of PW51 detecting officer along with Ext.P1 search list. Whether we can believe the evidence of PW51 along with Ext.P1, which is alleged to be contemporaneous, is the question to be decided in this case. 18. It is a settled position of law that a court of law cannot ignore the evidence of detecting officer simply because there is no independent corroboration to his evidence. But here is a case where there is evidence adduced by the defence to improbablise the case of the detecting officer. It is true that the evidence of DW1 and DW2 are rejected by the trial court. I have gone through the evidence of DW1 and DW2 in detail and perused Exts.D4 and D5 newspaper reports. It is true that the newspaper report is not admissible in evidence unless the same is proved in a proper manner. Newspaper reports are normally treated as hearsay. But if the contents of a newspaper report are proved, it is admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act. It is true that the newspaper report is not admissible in evidence unless the same is proved in a proper manner. Newspaper reports are normally treated as hearsay. But if the contents of a newspaper report are proved, it is admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act. (Mathew Varghese and others v. KSEB, TVM and others, 2014 (3) KLT 258 ). Here is a case where the defence examined the reporters who gave the news items published in Exts.D4 and D5 as DW1 and DW2. The contents of Exts.D4(a) and D5(a) are important in this case. The same is extracted herein below : Ext.D4(a) reads thus : 19. Ext.D4 is the Malayala Manorama newspaper dated 4.10.1991. As per the news published in Malayala Manorama Newspaper dated 4.10.1991, it is stated that a building is sealed by the police, which is alleged to be a place where counterfeit notes are printed. It is also stated that one person was taken into custody. It is also narrated that it is a building adjacent to the house of Kurumbil George, which is situated near Karimkunnam Kavala. It is also reported in the news item that the building was raided by the Crime Branch on Wednesday. Wednesday means 2.10.1991. It is also stated in the report that Reji, S/o. George was taken into custody. Reji is the fourth accused. The report came on 4.10.1991. The admitted prosecution case is that the search and seizure of the articles mentioned in Ext.P1 search list completed only at 4 P.M. on 4.10.1991. Thereafter, when accused Nos.1 to 3 were questioned by the police, based on the confession statement of the second accused, the police party reached the house of George on 5.10.1991, and the fourth accused was arrested only on 5.10.1991. This report came on 4.10.1991. Usually, it will be published in the early morning of 4.10.1991. If that is the case, the entire prosecution case will collapse on this news item itself. As per the admitted prosecution case, the police party reached Karinkunnam only on 5.10.1991. The prosecution has no case that, the place mentioned in Ext.D4(a) and Ext.D5(a) are not the places of search mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3. It is true that the public prosecutor seriously opposed the admissibility of Ext.D4 paper news. 20. As per the admitted prosecution case, the police party reached Karinkunnam only on 5.10.1991. The prosecution has no case that, the place mentioned in Ext.D4(a) and Ext.D5(a) are not the places of search mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3. It is true that the public prosecutor seriously opposed the admissibility of Ext.D4 paper news. 20. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it is a piece of fake news published by a newspaper at the instance of the accused. He submitted that a court of law could not accept such evidence, and the court of law can only accept legal evidence. 21. I am not in a position to accept the contention of the public prosecutor. It is true that the news items published in newspapers are normally not admissible in evidence. But here is a case where the newspaper is marked, and the reporter of the particular newspaper was also examined as a witness. If we go through the news item, the entire prosecution case will collapse. Of course, DW1 did not depose that, from where he got this information. The newspaper reporter need not disclose the same. As far as newspaper reporters are concerned, they are normally known as the fourth estate. They are giving reports based on certain information. They are not bound to disclose the source. Here is a case where the defence was able to prove that such a news item was published on 4.10.1991 in Malayala Manorama daily, which is one of the leading newspaper in Kerala. It is true that, the case of the prosecution is that, A1 to A3 were arrested on 3.10.1991 and as per Ext.P1 search list counterfeit notes are seized. The news item says about the arrest of A4, which according to the prosecution happened only on 5.10.1991, and the seizure as per Exts.P2 and P3 were also on 5.10.1991. Search and seizure of Exts.P1 to P3 are interconnected. 22. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no evidence to show that DW1 is the reporter of Malayala Manorama. But summons was issued from the court to the Malayala Manorama office. Moreover, Public Prosecutor who cross-examined DW1 has no such case when DW1 was cross examined. So the public prosecutor, who is appearing before the appellate court, cannot raise such a contention. 23. Moreover, it is not a news item published in a single newspaper. But summons was issued from the court to the Malayala Manorama office. Moreover, Public Prosecutor who cross-examined DW1 has no such case when DW1 was cross examined. So the public prosecutor, who is appearing before the appellate court, cannot raise such a contention. 23. Moreover, it is not a news item published in a single newspaper. It is published in other newspapers also. The defence examined DW2, who is the reporter of another newspaper, namely Deepika. Ext.D5(a) is the Deepika newspaper dated 5.10.1991. On the front page of this newspaper, Ext.D5(a) is published. In Ext.D5(a), it is stated that from a house at Karikunnath, thousands of hundred rupees fake notes were seized. It is also stated that Reji, S/o. George was taken into custody by the police. But, this news item came in a newspaper dated 5.10.1991, which normally will reach the reader's hand in the early morning. The search at Karimkunnam as per the prosecution case was conducted on 5.10.1991 and the search was by noon. The evidence of DW1 and DW2 along with Ext.D4(a) and Ext.D5(a) newspaper items will improbablise the entire prosecution case about the search, seizure, and arrest based on Exts.P1 to P3. In such circumstances, we have to look into uncorroborated evidence of PW51. It is also to be noted that there is no arrest memo in this case. So, this court has to rely on the evidence of PW51 along with Ext.P1 to convict the second accused ignoring Exts.D4(a) and D5(a) and, of course, the evidence of DW1 and DW2. 24. In such circumstances, the question will arise whether the solitary evidence of PW51, which is not corroborated by an independent source can be believed or not. I think, in this case, the evidence of PW51 along with Ext.P1 which is alleged to be a contemporaneous record, cannot be believed at least for the purpose that the second accused was present at the time of search and seizure in this case. Moreover, to prove arrest, the marking of arrest memo is important. This point is considered by this court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Ramankutty v. Excise Inspector ( 2013 (3) KHC 308 ) reads thus : “7. Moreover, to prove arrest, the marking of arrest memo is important. This point is considered by this court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Ramankutty v. Excise Inspector ( 2013 (3) KHC 308 ) reads thus : “7. It is pertinent to note that the 'arrest memo', a crucial document which is required to be prepared contemporaneously at the time of arrest to show the genuineness of arrest, is seen not produced before the trial court. Prosecution has no case that though the arrest memo had been prepared at the time of the arrest and seizure, it could not be produced before the trial court. So it can be safely concluded that it was not prepared at the time of alleged arrest. It is the violation of one of the mandatory requirements of arrest to be followed in all cases of arrest, which is made mandatory by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal. The specific case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner, while coming through a public road carrying a plastic can containing 2 litres of arrack in his hand, was arrested from a road and seized the said contraband by the Preventive Officer and party. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the arrest with the contraband in his hand is the basis of the prosecution case on which the entire case has been built up. If the arrest is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire case set up by the prosecution will fall to ground. It is also pertinent to note that there is no evidence to show that one friend or relative or other person known to him was informed of the arrest of the revision petitioner, immediately after the arrest in compliance with another mandatory requirement of arrest in the Supreme Court decision in D.K. Basu's case. It is apposite to have a look at the said directions of the Supreme Court which read as follows : “That the Police Officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.” The prosecution has no case that they have complied the said directions. I am of the opinion that the non-compliance of the mandatory requirements to be complied at the time of arrest speaks volumes doubting the genuineness of the arrest and it is fatal to prosecution case, as the seizure of the contraband has no existence at all without proving the factum of arrest, beyond reasonable doubt.” 25. In Vijayan @ Pattalam Vijayan and another v. State of Kerala ( 2018 (2) KHC 814 ), this court observed the importance of arrest memo in paragraph 17. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder : “17. Arrest memo is required to be prepared contemporaneously at the time of arrest to show the genuineness of the arrest. Therefore, as rightly put forth by the learned counsel, it is a crucial document and with the availability of the same in evidence alone, the propriety and the regularity of the arrest could be ascertained. What is envisaged by the preparation of an arrest memo is only ensure that the accused was arrested and taken into custody at a place, at a particular point of time and based on a specific and clear allegation of accusation against him. Only to ensure that these particulars were observed by the official at the time of arrest that the preparation of arrest memo is insisted. Therefore, the dictum laid down in the decision cited supra, which is relied on by the learned counsel, would squarely be applicable in the case on hand.” 26. It is true that simply because an arrest memo is not produced, the entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, the dictum laid down in the decision cited supra, which is relied on by the learned counsel, would squarely be applicable in the case on hand.” 26. It is true that simply because an arrest memo is not produced, the entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. But here is a case where the evidence adduced by PW51 is suspicious in the light of the evidence of DW1 and DW2 along with Exts.D4(a) and D5(a). In such circumstances, without corroboration, it is difficult to accept the evidence of PW51. In such situation, the arrest memo is important. In this case, the arrest memo is not marked. PW43 has no case that the second accused was present at the time of search. PW2, the independent witness, has no case that the second accused was present at the time of the search and seizure. PW52, who is another officer, who accompanied PW51, has no case that the second accused was present at the time of alleged seizure as per Ext.P1. In such circumstances, I think the second accused is entitled the benefit of doubt. Therefore, this Crl.Appeal is allowed in the following manner : (i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the first appellant/second accused are set aside. (ii) The first appellant/second accused is set at liberty. Bail bond, if any, executed by him is set aside. (iii) The appeal against the second appellant/ fourth accused is closed as abated. As stated by the Full Bench of this Court in Pazhani v. State ( 2017 (1) KLT 341 ), the sentence of imprisonment alone will be abated. The Registry will do the follow-up action as per the full bench judgment. (iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the first appellant, as per the directions in this appeal, will be disbursed to him.