The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 120B, 489B and 489C IPC for possession and trafficking of counterfeit currency notes, rejecting challenges regarding sole reliance on police witnesses, non-supply of earlier witness statements, and discrepancies in seizure location.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1945
CRL.A NO. 479 OF 2006
[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2006 IN S.C.NO.1651/2003 OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM]
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
XAVIER KENNEDY @ JOY
S/O.PETER, KOCHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA
VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
BY ADV M.T.SURESHKUMAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV RAJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2023,
THE COURT ON 10.7.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the 1staccused in
S.C.No.1651/2003 on the file of the 1st
Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. The
aforesaid case arises from Crime No.254/2001
of Kottarakkara Police Station, which was
later re-numbered as Crime No.102(CR)2001
C.B.C.I.D(CFS),Thiruvananthapuram.The
offences alleged against the appellant, and
the 2ndaccused were under sections
120(B),489B, 489C r/w.Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC).
2.The prosecution case is as follows:
The appellant conspired with the 2nd
accused to traffick in counterfeit currency notes
of denomination of Rs.100/- and on a
day in a week prior to 23.3.2001, the 2nd
accused procured some counterfeit currency
3
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
notes of Rs.100/- denomination from a person
from Tamilnadu while he was occupying room
No.102 of Rohini hotel and restaurant,
Kottarakkara. Thereafter he exchanged those
currency notes worth Rs.20,000/- to the
appellant herein for original currency notes
of Rs.10,000/-, and the appellant used those
currency notes for the transaction. The crime
was detected in the following manner; On
23.3.2001, the appellant was found in
possession of 62 counterfeit currency notes by
the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara and
his team while the appellant was standing in
front of his meat stall near Puthoor junction.
On further questioning, the appellant/1st
accused informed that he obtained the said
currency notes from the 2nd accused, who was
residing in Rohini Hotel and Restaurant,
Kottarakkara. Thereupon, an inspection was
4
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
conducted in the hotel and from the possession
of the 2nd accused, ten counterfeit currency
notes of 100 denomination were recovered.
Accused persons were arrested, and the
counterfeit currency notes were seized after
preparing mahazar in the presence of
independent witnesses.
3.Thereafter, on 19.4.2001, CBCID took
over the investigation. After completing the
investigation, the final report was submitted
before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and the
matter was later committed to the Sessions
Court. The trial was conducted before the 1st
Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, as
S.C.No.1651/2003, in which the appellant alone
participated, as the 2nd accused absconded. In
support of the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 11
were examined, Exhibits P1 to P17 were marked,
and material objects 1 to 4 were identified.
5
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
After completing the prosecution evidence, the
appellant was examined under section 313 of
Cr.PC, during the course of which, the
incriminating materials brought out by the
prosecution were put to him. He denied the
same and stated that he was innocent of all
the allegations and that he was falsely
implicated. No defence evidence was adduced.
4.After appreciating the materials
placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge
found the appellant guilty of the offences
punishable under sections 120B, 489B and 489C
r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for five years and to
pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with a default
sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for
one year under section 489B r/w. Section 34 of
the IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to
6
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
under section 489C r/w. 34 of IPC. No separate
sentence was awarded under section 120B r/w.
34 of IPC. This Crl.Appeal is filed
challenging the aforesaid conviction and
sentence.
5.Heard Sri.M.T.Sureshkumar, the learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri.Ranjit
George, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
for the State.
6.The learned counsel for the appellant
contends that the prosecution miserably failed
in establishing the allegations raised against
him. It was pointed out that there was a clear
discrepancy with respect to the place from
which the arrest of the appellant and the
recovery of the counterfeit notes were
affected. It is pointed out that Exhibit P7(a)
location sketch prepared by PW6 Village
7
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
Officer, and the evidence adduced by PW9, the
Detecting Officer were mutually contradictory.
It was also pointed out that there was some
delay in producing the counterfeit currency
notes before the court. It was pointed out
that, recovery was affected on 23.3.2001,
whereas the said articles reached before the
court on 7.4.2001, and no proper explanation
is forthcoming for the delay. He further
pointed out that it has come out in evidence
that the Sub Inspector of Police (PW9)
recorded the statements of the witnesses, and
later the statements of the said witnesses
were recorded by PW10 as per the instructions
of PW1 after the investigation was taken over
by the CBCID. However, the statements of the
witnesses recorded by PW9 were not provided to
the accused, and this caused prejudice to the
appellant during the trial as the appellant
8
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
lost the opportunity to use the said
statements for contradictions. It was also
pointed out that even if it is assumed that
the articles were seized from the possession
of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate
that the possession of the said articles by
the appellant was with the knowledge that the
said currency notes were fake. It was also
contended that the only evidence available
against the appellant is the deposition of the
official witnesses, as all the other witnesses
who were examined to prove the recovery of the
articles from the possession of the appellant
have turned hostile to the prosecution.
Besides the same, despite the fact that the
specific case of the prosecution is that the
appellant was a meat vendor and the recovery
was affected while he was in the shop, the
prosecution miserably failed to produce any
9
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
document showing the ownership or possession
of the appellant over the said meat shop. The
learned counsel for the appellant seeks
interference in the matter in such
circumstances.
7.On the other hand, the learned Public
Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid
contentions. It is pointed out that even
though PWs.1 and 2, the witnesses to the
seizure mahazar, have turned hostile to the
prosecution, PWs.7 to 9, the official
witnesses who were the members of the police
party who detected the offence, have given a
consistent version as to the incident. Apart
from the same, the evidence of PW3, who was
examined to prove the recovery of the articles
from the possession of the 2nd accused, has
also clearly mentioned the acquaintance of the
1st accused with the 2nd accused while the 2nd
10
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
accused was staying in the said lodge. It was
also pointed out that the lack of furnishing
copies of the statements of the witnesses
recorded by PW9 to the appellant is not a
matter of much consequence as both the
statements given by the victims to PW9 and
PW10 were the same. The said aspect is clearly
deposed by PW11.
8.I have gone through the records. From
the materials placed on record, it is
discernible that the crucial evidence that the
prosecution has relied upon is the oral
evidence of PWs.7 to 9. PW9 was the Sub
Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara, who
detected the offence. According to him, on
23.3.2001, he got information that a person
named Joy was in possession of counterfeit
currency notes and was carrying out the
transaction using the same. As per the
11
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
information received, such transactions were
being made at the meat shop of the said Joy
situated near Puthoor junction. Immediately
thereupon, PW9, along with the police party
consisting of PWs.7 and 8 and others, rushed
to the said spot. When they reached, upon
seeing the police party, the appellant got
panic and tried to escape from the place of
occurrence. Immediately, the police party
apprehended him and conducted a body search.
Thereupon, 62 currency notes could be
recovered from a plastic kit tagged on his
dhoti, and upon questioning, the appellant
informed the police that it was the amount he
received by selling meat. On scrutiny, it was
found that some of the notes carried the same
serial numbers, and the quality and printing
were also different from the genuine currency
notes. On scrutiny, it was realised that the
12
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
same were counterfeit currency notes. On
further questioning, he revealed that he
received the said counterfeit currency notes
from the 2nd accused, who was residing at
Rohini Hotel and Restaurant at Kottarakkara in
room No.102. Later, an inspection was
conducted in the said hotel from where the 2nd
accused was arrested after having been found
in possession of 10 counterfeit currency
notes, which were similar to the notes seized
from the possession of the appellant herein.
accompanied PW9 while conducting the search
and seizure of counterfeit currency notes. His
evidence is clearly in tune with the evidence
given by PW9. He also mentioned about the
presence of PW8 along with them while the
seizure and arrest of the appellant were
affected. He also stated that Exhibit P1
13
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
mahazar was prepared by him as per the
instructions of PW9. PW8 is the Assistant Sub
Inspector of Police of Kottarakkara Police
Station, who was a party to the inspection
team. He clearly gave evidence in tune with
the evidence of PWs.7 and 9. He clearly stated
the sequence of events as narrated by PWs.7
and 9 and that the mahazar was prepared by PW7
as instructed by PW9.
10.PW1 and PW2 are the witnesses who had
affixed their signature in Exhibit P1 seizure
mahazar, which is a contemporaneous document
prepared at the time of the recovery of the
counterfeit currency notes from the possession
of the appellant herein. It is true that both
the said witnesses have turned hostile to the
prosecution, although they admitted their
respective signatures in Exhibit P1. The
learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
14
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
contended that because there are no
independent witnesses available evidencing the
recovery of the articles from the possession
of the appellant, it is not safe to convict
the appellant based on the depositions of the
official witnesses alone. He also has a case
that the appellant was falsely implicated in
this case, as he used to submit complaints
against the illegal brewing of arrack by some
persons before Kundara Police Station. As
there was inaction on the part of the Kundara
Police, he also submitted complaints before
the Superintendent of Police and on account of
the enmity due to some, the crime was
registered against the appellant by the Sub
Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara at the
instance of the Kundara police.
11.I have carefully gone through the
materials placed on record by keeping in mind
15
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
the contention raised by the appellant in this
regard. Upon appreciating the entire materials
before me, I do not find any reason to accept
such contentions. It is true that, independent
witnesses have turned hostile to the
prosecution, but merely because of that
reason, it cannot be concluded that, the
prosecution failed to establish their case.
The position of law in this regard is well
settled, and it is to the effect that if the
evidence of official witnesses were found to
be consistent and reliable, nothing would
preclude the court from convicting the accused
by relying upon the same. In such cases, the
hostility shown by the independent witnesses
cannot have any significance at all. In State
(NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil [(2001)1 SCC 652], it
was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
follows:
16
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
“It is an archaic notion that actions of the
police officer should be approached with initial
distrust. It is time now to start placing at least
initial trust on the actions and the documents
made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot
start with the presumption that the police records
are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the
presumption should be the other way around. That
official acts of the police have been regularly
performed is a wise principle of presumption and
recognised even by the legislature.”
Similarly, in Surinder Kumar v. State of
Punjab [(2020)2 SCC 563], It was observed as
follows:
“15. The judgment inJarnail Singhv.State of
Punjab[Jarnail Singhv.State of Punjab, (2011) 3
SCC 521 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1191] , relied on by
the counsel for the respondent State also supports
the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid
judgment, this Court has held that merely because
prosecution did not examine any independent
witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion
that the accused was falsely implicated. The
evidence of official witnesses cannot be
distrusted and disbelieved merely because of their
official status.”
By following the aforesaid decisions, it was
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rizwan
Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2020)9 SCC
627] that the testimony of the official
witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of
non-corroboration by independent witnesses.
17
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
Thus, while applying the principles laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decisions, it can be seen that the contentions
raised by the appellant by placing reliance
upon the hostility of PWs.1 and 2 cannot be
accepted. As I have observed in the paragraphs
referred to above, the depositions of PWs.7 to
9 are consistent in all material particulars,
and there is no discrepancy in their evidence.
Alltheirstatementsaremutually
corroborative. As far as the evidence of PWs.1
and 2 are concerned, the crucial aspect to be
noticed is that both of them have admitted
their signatures in Exhibit P1 mahazar.
However, although they denied having witnessed
the recovery a careful scrutiny of their
evidence would give the impression that the
appellant was known to them. When all these
aspects are considered, I have no hesitation
18
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
in holding that the evidence adduced by PWs.7
to 9 is trustworthy. Therefore, there is
nothing wrong in placing reliance upon their
testimonies for holding the appellant guilty
of the offences.
12. Another contention raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant is with
regard to the discrepancies in the location of
the meat stall and lack of evidence showing
the ownership/possession of the appellant over
the said shop. It is true that there is some
discrepancy with respect to the same as is
revealed from Ext.P7(a) site plan and the
evidence of PWs.7 to 9. The evidence of PW6,
Village Officer, also has some discrepancy with
respect to the same. It is to be noted
that as per the evidence of PW6, the meat
shop is located 250 feet away from the junction,
whereas as per Ext.P7(a), it was located at a
distance of 7.5 feet from the junction.
19
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
However, in this case, the discrepancy above
cannot have any serious impact as far as the
prosecution case is concerned. Here, in this
case, there is no case for the prosecution
that the articles were seized from the meat
shop. The specific case of the prosecution,
which was established through the evidence of
PWs.7 to 9, was that the articles were seized
from the body of the appellant while he was
standing in front of the meat shop. Similarly,
the lack of materials regarding the ownership
of the meat shop is also not a material
aspect, as the question whether the appellant
was the owner of meat shop or not is not at
all a matter which has something to do with
the prosecution case. He was not implicated as
an accused because of his connection with the
meat shop. At the most, the only relevant
aspect is that the information received by PW9
20
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
while he was in the police station was to the
effect that the transactions of counterfeit
currency notes were being carried out in a
meat shop near Puthoor junction. However, the
evidence adduced by the prosecution would
clearly establish that the seizure was
affected from the body of the appellant, and
the sequence of events which led to such
recovery was clearly and consistently
mentioned by PWs.7 to 9. In such
circumstances, the discrepancy in the location
of the meat shop does not have any
significance at all, and such discrepancy
cannot, under any circumstances, lead to a
conclusion that the appellant was not guilty.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the said
contention as well.
13.Another crucial contention raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant is that
21
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
the prosecution did not provide entire
materials to the accused, and this has caused
prejudice to him. It is pointed out that
before PW10 took charge of the investigation,
PW9 conducted an investigation and recorded
the statements of certain witnesses. Later,
witnesses were again questioned by CBCID after
they took charge of the investigation.
However, the earlier statements recorded by
PW9 were not provided to him. Therefore, the
appellant lost the opportunity to make use of
the said statements, to contradict their
statements, and thereby to challenge the
credibility of the said witnesses. In this
regard, it is seen that the reliance was
placed on the decision rendered by this Court
in Murali v. State of Kerala[2003(3)KLT 226].
It is true that, in that decision, it was held
by a Division Bench of this Court that the
22
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
non-furnishing of some of the statements or
some part of the statements of the same
witnesses will vitiate the trial, and it would
amount to denial of a fair trial. I have
carefully gone through the observations made
by this Court in the said judgment. From such
examination, it could be seen that the facts
and circumstances under which such an
observation was made by this Court were
completely different. It was a case in which
the statement which was allegedly not
furnished to the accused was marked in
evidence, and it was found that the statements
of the said witnesses under section 161 of the
Cr.P.C, were mutually contradictory. As far as
facts of this case are concerned, it can be seen
that, in the evidence of PW11, the Investigation
Officer who submitted the final report
had clearly stated that he examined the earlier
statements given by the witnesses to
23
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
the Sub Inspector of Police also and found
that both the statements given by the
witnesses were same. Besides the same, in the
judgment rendered by the learned Sessions
Judge, it is observed that, at the time of the
hearing, he also perused the case diary and
found that there were no contradictions in the
statements of the respective witnesses. Even
though such an exercise was not at all
warranted by the learned Sessions Judge, in
the facts and circumstances of this case, I am
of the view that the same cannot be treated as
a crucial factor warranting the interference
in the conclusion arrived at by the learned
Sessions Judge. This is mainly because the
aforesaid question was considered by another
Division Bench of this Court in Sukumaran v.
State of Kerala [2005 KHC 646]. In Sukumaran’s
case (supra), it was categorically held by
24
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
this Court thatmere non-supply of the
statements recorded under section 161 by
itself cannot amount to prejudice, and it will
not vitiate the trial. It was observed that,
the prejudice, if any, caused to the accused,
has to be established. In the said decision,
after referring to various decisions including
the decisionS in Pulukkuri Kottaya v. Emperor
[AIR 1947 PC 67], Narayan Rao v. State of A.P.
[AIR 1957 SC 737] and the other decisions, it
was observed as follows:
“22 What emerges from the above decisions is that
non supply of statements recorded under S.161(3)
Cr.P.C. by itself cannot amount to prejudice, nor
will it vitiate the trial. Prejudice is a mental
decision based on grounds other than reason or
justice or a premature or adversely biased opinion
or a detriment or injury or harm arising from a
hasty or unfair judgment or a judgment favourable
or unfavourable formed beforehand or without due
examination. The question of prejudice is
ultimately one of inference from of the facts and
circumstances of each case (Moseb Kaka Chowdhari
v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1956 SC 536). It is
not enough merely to allege that the accused has
suffered prejudice. It should further be pointed
out as to how or in what manner the accused has
suffered prejudice. Even where prejudice has been
made out in a given case, the decision has been
made out in a given case, the decision in Narayan
Rao's case (AIR 1957 SC 737) has indicated the
course which the court may adopt:-
25
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
"Certainly, if it is shown, in a particular case
on behalf of the accused persons that the omission
on the part of the police officers concerned or of
the Magistrate before whom the committal
proceedings had pended, has caused prejudice to
the accused, in the interest of justice, the Court
may reopen the proceedings by insisting upon full
compliance with the provision of the Code".
In Noor Khan's case also it has been observed as
follows:-
"......... and where the circumstances are such
that the court may reasonably infer that prejudice
has resulted to the accused from the failure to
supply the statements recorded under S.161,the
court would be justified in directing that the
conviction be set aside and in a proper case to
direct that the defect be rectified in such manner
as the circumstances may warrant."
In the case on hand there is no proof of prejudice
due to the alleged non supply of the statements
recorded by PW 14.”
23 In the light of the aforesaid pronouncement of
the law by the apex court, the earlier decisions
of this Court cited at the Bar by the learned
counsel for the appellants holding that non supply
of statements is itself prejudice and vitiates the
trial, may not be reflective of the true statement
of law. It is true that the expanded horizon of
the concept of "right to life" enshrined in Art.21
of the Constitution of India had not been
discovered in the early two and a half decades of
the adoption of the Indian Constitution. The
various facets of the rights of human beings in
every conceivable situations of life have since
been perceived and brought to light through the
painstaking labour of the legal fraternity. The
concept of "fair trial" and "fair procedure" in
the dispensation of justice was certainly
different in the formative period of our
constitution from what it is today. But in spite
of that, we cannot fail to notice the binding
declaration of the law by the Apex Court even in
its recent pronouncements adverted to above
upholding the legal position stated in AIR 1957 SC
737 and AIR 1964 SC 286. For the reasons already
we are unable to uphold the contentions on behalf
of the appellants that the non supply of the
statements recorded by PW 14 has caused prejudice
to the accused. In fact, the accused were
26
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
furnished with the statements recorded by PW 16
under S.161(3) Cr.P.C. and they had effectively
shaped their defence on the basis of those
statements which alone were relied on. Even if
prejudice had been made, the consequence is not
acquittal, but as indicated in AIR 1967 SC 637,
AIR 1964 SC 286, the consequence is to set aside
the conviction and remit the case to the Trial
Court to rectify the defect.”
14.In the said decision, it is also held
that even if the prejudice has been
established, the consequence cannot be an
acquittal, but instead, the conviction has to
be set aside and the matter has to be remitted
back.
15.When applying the principles to the
facts of this case, I find that the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant in this regard cannot be accepted.
First of all, there is absolutely no material
before me indicating any prejudice caused to
the accused on account of non supply of the
earlier statements of the witnesses. This is
particularly because, considering the entire
27
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
materials placed before me, the only possible
impression that could be gathered is that
there were no contradictions in the statements
given by the witnesses. Yet another crucial
aspect to be noticed is that the independent
witnesses who were examined to prove the role
of the appellant viz. PWs.1 and 2 have turned
hostile to the prosecution. Therefore, the
significance of their earlier statements is
not all relevant as far as the case advanced
by the defence is concerned. The other
witnesses are official witnesses, and as
mentioned above, there is nothing to indicate
that there were any contradictions in their
statements recorded on both occasions. In such
circumstances, I do not find any justifiable
reason to entertain the contentions raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant in this
regard.
28
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
16.Another contention put forward by the
learned counsel for the appellant is about the
delay in the production of the articles. It is
pointed out that the articles were seized on
23.3.2001, and the same reached in the court
on 7.4.2001. However, I am not inclined to
accept this as a ground for any prejudice
being caused to the appellant. Exhibit P1 is
the mahazar evidencing recovery of the
counterfeit currency note, which is a
contemporaneous document. I have already found
by relying upon the evidence of PWs.7 to 9
that the recovery was amply proved. In Exhibit
P1, a clear description of all the counterfeit
currency notes with their respective serial
numbers are seen mentioned. The appellant does
not have a case that MO2 series counterfeit
currency notes have different serial numbers than
those mentioned in Exhibit P1 mahazar. In such
29
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
circumstances, I do not find any legal
sustainability in the argument raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant in this
regard.
17.Further contention raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant to the
effect that, even if it is accepted for the
argument's sake that counterfeit currency
notes were seized from the possession of the
appellant, that by itself is not sufficient to
hold the appellant is guilty of the offences.
To establish the culpability of the appellant
and to hold him guilty of the offence, besides
the possession, the prosecution also has an
obligation to establish that such possession
was with the knowledge that the said currency
notes were counterfeit currency notes.
However, in this case, on scanning through the
entire materials, there are sufficient
30
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
indicationsestablishingtheconscious
possession of the appellant as to its falsity.
The evidence of PWs.7 to 9 would indicate that
upon seeing the police party, the appellant
got perplexed and made an attempt to flee from
the scene of occurrence. The appellant was
apprehended by the police, and upon conducting
a search, 62 counterfeit currency notes were
found from his body. The fact that he got
panic by seeing the police and attempted to
flee from the place itself would show that the
appellant was very well aware of the nature of
currency notes. Besides the same, another
crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is
that, based on the information furnished by
the appellant, a search was conducted in
Rohini Hotel and Restaurant from where the 2nd
accused was arrested along with ten
counterfeit currency notes. The arrest of the
31
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
2ndaccused and seizure of counterfeit
currency notes from him were established by
the evidence of the official witnesses and
corroborated by the evidence of PW3, the
Manager of the said lodge. In his deposition,
PW3 clearly stated that he knows the appellant
herein and identified the appellant as a
person who used to visit the 2nd accused in
the hotel regularly. When all these aspects
are considered, it leads to a conclusive
finding that the possession of the counterfeit
currency notes by the appellant was with the
knowledge and he was keeping the said articles
with him for the purpose of the transaction.
In such circumstances, I do not find any
ground to accept the contention put forward by
the learned counsel for the appellant in this
regard.
32
Crl.Appeal No.479/2006
18.Thus, considering all the relevant
aspects, I do not find any merit in this
appeal. The guilt of the appellant is clearly
established from the materials placed on
record.
In such circumstances, this appeal is
dismissed by confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed upon the appellant by the 1st
Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, in
S.C.No.1651/2003.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction based on the testimony of official witnesses alone is sustainable when independent witnesses turned hostile.
Whether non-supply of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vitiates the trial.
Whether the prosecution established that the appellant had conscious possession of counterfeit currency notes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State (NCT of Delhi) v. SunilReferred
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil [(2001)1 SCC 652] · Who else cites this
Surinder Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred
Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(2020)2 SCC 563] · Who else cites this
Rizwan Khan v. State of ChhattisgarhReferred
Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2020)9 SCC 627] · Who else cites this
Murali v. State of KeralaDistinguished
Murali v. State of Kerala[2003(3)KLT 226]
Sukumaran v. State of KeralaFollowed
Sukumaran v. State of Kerala [2005 KHC 646]
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Xavier Kennedy @ Joy
State of Kerala
Ziyad Rahman A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court