Shri Nagesha Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SIDLAGHATTA TOWN POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, K, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 17.09.2021, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA SITTING AT CHINTAMANI IN S.C.NO.18/2018, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489-C AND B OF IPC.

¶12

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:4623 CRL.A No. 1600 of 2021

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Heard Sri.P.Freud Richardson, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶18

Though the appeal is listed for admission, by

¶19

consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶20

Appellant is the accused in S.C.No.18/2018 who

¶21

has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the offences.

¶22

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

¶23

The case of the prosecution reveals that on 20.12.2017, accused went to State Bank of India,

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4623 CRL.A No. 1600 of 2021

¶25

Shidlaghatta branch, he tendered 12 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.2,000/- each bearing Nos.5GQ-356183, 5GQ356268, 5GQ-829150, 5GQ-356397, 5GQ-356489, 5GQ356542, 5GQ-356281, 5GQ-298260, 5GQ-298253, 5GQ829146, 5GQ-356262, 5GQ-356233 (herein after referred to as the said notes) for the purpose of getting exchanged.

¶26

A case came to be registered and thereafter Shidlaghatta Town police station, Chickballapura investigated the matter and filed charge sheet after detailed investigation.

¶27

Thereafter, the presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore, trial was held.

¶28

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.13 and placed on record 20 documents which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. Among them Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 are the counterfeit notes, Ex.P13 is the

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:4623 CRL.A No. 1600 of 2021

¶31

spot mahazar, Ex.P14 is the complaint, Ex.P15 is the seizure mahazar, Ex.P16 is the portion of statement of Pw.7, Ex.P17 is the FIR, Ex.P18 is the letter, Ex.P19 is the report and Ex.P20 is the sample seal.

¶32

On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned trial judge recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused has denied all the incriminating materials and did not choose to place any written submission on record nor lead any defence evidence.

¶33

Thereafter learned trial judge heard the arguments of parties in detail and on considering the material evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and passed the sentence as under:

¶34

"Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sections 489-C and simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 489-B of IPC.

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:4623 CRL.A No. 1600 of 2021

¶37

Both sentences shall run concurrently.

¶38

Further the accused is also liable to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each for the offences punishable under Sections 489-C & B of IPC.

¶39

In default he is liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months.

¶40

Accused is entitled for set off for the period undergone in detention.

¶41

Counterfeit currency notes marked as Ex.P1 to P12 be destroyed after appeal period is over.

¶42

Office is directed to furnish certified copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith."

¶43

Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

¶44

Sri.P.Freud Richardson, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that its an isolated incident and in fact Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were tendered to be deposited in to the account maintained by him in State

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4623 CRL.A No. 1600 of 2021

¶46

Bank of India, Shidlaghatta branch not knowing that Rs.2,000/- notes were actually counterfeit currency and therefore, accused/appellant is innocent of the offences alleged against him and thus sought for allowing the appeal.

¶47

He also pointed that accused being handicapped person, some body else has duped him by tendering counterfeit currency notes to him which has been sought to be deposited into the account in an innocent manner by the appellant and he has been falsely implicated in the case on hand and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶48

Alternatively, Sri.P.Freud Richardson contended that since the incident is an isolated incident, taking note of the fact that accused being handicapped person, this Court may show leniency in directing the custody period already undergone by the appellant as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and allow the appeal to that extent.

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:4623 CRL.A No. 1600 of 2021

¶51

Per contra, Sri.Rahul Rai, learned HCGP opposes the appeal grounds in toto. He would further contend that under Sections 489-B and 489-C possession of counterfeit currency and negotiation thereof would complete the offence and innocence of accused cannot be presumed in such matters.

¶52

He further contended that even the attempt to deposit the counterfeit currency into the Savings Bank account held by the appellant would be sufficient enough to attract the rigors of law under Section 489-B of IPC and thus, the contentions as on behalf of the appellant cannot be countenanced in law and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

Insofar as alternative submission is concerned, 12 currency notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination is sought to be negotiated by the appellant and therefore, no leniency can be shown for such persons. Otherwise similarly placed perpetrators of the crime get encouraged and they would

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4623 CRL.A No. 1600 of 2021

¶55

also indulge in similar offences and sough for dismissal of the appeal in toto.

¶56

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously and the following points would arise for consideration:

¶57

1. Whether the material evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC ?

¶58

2. Whether the appellant makes out legal infirmity or perversity in recording a finding for the aforesaid offences?

¶59

3. Whether the sentence needs

¶60

modification or what?

¶61

4. What order?

¶62

Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2 :

¶63

On such perusal of material on record, Ex.P1 to

¶64

12 being the fake currency notes of Rs.2,000/denomination each, was sought to be deposited into the

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4623 CRL.A No. 1600 of 2021

¶66

said Savings Bank account of the appellant held in State Bank of India, Shidlaghatta branch is established. Seizure of Exs.P1 to 12 under the seizure mahazar and spot mahazar is established by examining necessary witnesses by the prosecution.

¶67

Appellant also did not dispute the fact that he wanted to deposit Exs.P1 to 12 into his Savings Bank account of State Bank of India.

¶68

In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out the provisions of Section 489-B and 489-C of IPC which reads as under:

¶69

489B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes. — Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with 4 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:4623 CRL.A No. 1600 of 2021

¶72

either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶73

489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.— Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currencynote or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

¶74

On careful reading of the above provisions of law, it is crystal clear that possession and negotiation of counterfeit currency itself would be sufficient enough to conclude the offence and the question of knowledge, innocence has no significance.

¶75

Therefore, in the case on hand, the material evidence would be sufficient enough to hold that point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative even after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record.

¶76

11 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:4623 CRL.A No. 1600 of 2021

¶78

Regarding Point No.3:

¶79

Admittedly, the appellant is the first time offender and a handicapped person. In fact he has been brought before the Court on a wheelchair with an assistant. During the period of trial, he has undergone three months custody period.

¶80

Taking note of the fact that its an isolated incident and accused being handicapped, this Court is of the considered opinion that directing the custody period already undergone as a period of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences by enhancing the fine amount for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rs.20,000/already imposed + Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by this Court = Rs.1,20,000/-) ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative.

¶81

Regarding Point No.4 :

¶82

In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following order is passed:

¶83

12 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:4623 CRL.A No. 1600 of 2021

¶85

ORDER

¶86

i. Criminal appeal is Allowed in Part.

¶87

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections-489-B and 489-C of IPC, the custody period already undergone by the appellant is hereby treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.20,000/- already imposed + Rs.1,00,000/imposed by this Court = Rs.1,20,000/-) to be payable on or before 28.02.2025, failing which he shall undergo remaining period of sentence.

¶88

iii. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records, along with a copy of this order forthwith for issuance of modified conviction order.

¶89

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶90

NS

¶91

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Shri Nagesha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nagesha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Prakash Rao Mairpady Vs Smt Swathi Hebbar

Narendra Kumar Malik Vs the State by

Kulwant Singh Vs the State by

Kumar D @ Dio Kumar Vs State by Karnataka

D S Shankarappa Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

P Raju Vs State by Central Bureau of Investigation