Hussaian M Y Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN S.C.NO.20/2021 ARISING OUT OF C.C.NO.496/2020 FILED IN CR.NO.76/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADIKERI FOR THE OFFENCE PU/S 489B AND 489C OF IPC.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The proceedings pending against the petitioner in

¶33

S.C.No.20/2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madikeri is called in question in this petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record.

¶35

First informant by name Sri. Mukunda. P. D. set the law in to motion, when he got suspicious on receiving a Rs.2,000/- denomination note tendered to him by

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10204 CRL.P No. 4802 of 2022

¶37

accused No.1 for recharging the currency to his mobile phone. The police who arrived at his shop apprehended accused No.1 and from his possession a counterfeit currency note of Rs.2,000 as well as the counterfeit currency note of Rs.2000/- denomination tendered to the first informant were seized.

¶38

The Police apprehended accused No.2 and from his possession two counterfeit currency notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination and from the child in conflict with law, one counterfeit currency note of Rs.2,000/denomination were seized.

¶39

Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 7

¶40

for offences punishable under Section 489B and 489C of IPC. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6 in the charge sheet.

¶41

It is alleged that accused Nos.6 and 7 supplied the counterfeit currency notes to accused Nos.4 and 5 who inturn gave the notes to other accused persons.

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:10204 CRL.P No. 4802 of 2022

¶44

In this case totally 5 counterfeit currency notes

¶45

of Rs.2,000/- denomination have been seized. Petitioner is arraigned as an accused only on the basis of the voluntary statement of the co-accused. Admittedly, there is no recovery of any counterfeit currency notes from the petitioner.

¶46

Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Kumar Khanna V/s. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of revenue Intelligence reported in (2018) 8 SCC 271 to contend that only on the basis of the confession statement of co accused, conviction cannot be based.

¶47

In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “though confession may be regarded as an evidence in that generic sense, the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person, it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution”. Paragraphs Nos.13 and 14 of the judgment are extracted herein:

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:10204 CRL.P No. 4802 of 2022

¶50

“13. In the present case it is accepted that

¶51

apart from the aforesaid statements of co-accused there is no material suggesting involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. We are thus left with only one piece of material that is the confessional statements of the co-accused as stated above. On the touchstone of law laid down by this Court such a confessional statement of a co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co- accused and can at best be used or utilized in order to lend assurance to the Court.

¶52

14. In the absence of any substantive evidence

¶53

it would be inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely on the statements of co-accused. The appellant is therefore entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the orders of conviction and sentence and acquit the appellant. The appellant shall be released forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other offence.”

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:10204 CRL.P No. 4802 of 2022

¶56

In a similar case, where the prosecution case rested on confession statement of the co-accused, this

¶57

Court in Crl.P.No.4263/2020 disposed on 13.01.2021 at para No.7 has observed as under:

¶58

7. "Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and the prosecution also not disputes the fact that this accused had been arraigned as accused No.4 based on the statement of the co-accused. Having perused the material, there is no any recovery from this petitioner and the co-accused statements are in-admissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 unless the recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The co-accused statement is also hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ."

¶59

In the case on hand except the confession

¶60

statement of the co-accused, there is absolutely no material collected by the prosecution to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. There is no material suggesting involvement of the petitioner in the crime in question and the confessional statement of co-accused

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:10204 CRL.P No. 4802 of 2022

¶63

cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence during trial. Hence, the petition succeeds. Accordingly, the following:-

¶64

i) Petitioner is allowed .

¶65

ii) Entire proceedings against the petitioner / accused No.6 in S.C.No.20/2021 pending on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge (Crime No.76/2019 of Madikeri Town Police Station, Kodagu) are quashed.

¶66

iii) I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed of .

¶67

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶68

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT:SNN

Hussaian M Y v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hussaian M Y 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivarajegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

N Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Manjunath M Vs State of Karnataka

Rishi Singh Thakur Vs Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Sri Jay Ramani Vs Sri. S.M. Krishnappa

Mr Maruthi @ Ramachandappa, Vs the State of Karnataka