Allowed

Wilson @ Francis v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jun 2024CRL.A/177/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant convicted under Section 489C IPC for possessing counterfeit US currency. The High Court found the expert report from Currency Note Press, Nashik unreliable as its author disclaimed knowledge of US currency security features, and PW1's assertion was mere assumption. Evidence being insufficient to prove counterfeiting conclusively, the conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment in S.C.No.356 of 2003 set aside; appellant acquitted and set at liberty.

Wilson @ Francis Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

CRL.APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2013 IN SC NO.356 OF 2003 OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,

¶7

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶9

WILSON @ FRANCIS S/O. KUTTAN NADAR, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MOONGOTTUKONAM, KATTAKADA, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.Y.CONSTANTINE

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY

¶15

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.Appeal No.177 of 2013

¶18

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶19

----------------------------------------------------------Crl.Appeal No.177 of 2013

¶20

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2024

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The conviction and sentence of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 489(c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) are under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶23

The appellant was the 3^rd accused. He alone was tried in S.C.No.356 of 2003. The 1^st accused was absconding. The 4^th accused expired prior to and the 2^nd accused expired pending trial and thereby the charge against them abated.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

Placing reliance on Ext.P6 report obtained from Currency Note Press, Nashik, the trial court concluded that the US currency notes of 100 denominations seized in this case were forged ones. The charge framed against the

¶26

¶27

Crl.Appeal No.177 of 2013

¶28

appellant was for offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC. He and his co-accused allegedly possessed counterfeit American and Saudi currency notes. The trial court found the appellant not guilty of the offence under Section 489B while found him guilty and convicted of the offence under Section 489C of the IPC.

¶29

In order to constitute an offence under Section 489C of the IPC, apart from possession of the currency notes and the notes are counterfeit, following ingredients are also to be established; namely, at the time of possession the accused knew the notes to be counterfeit or had reason to believe the same to be counterfeit and he intended to use the same as genuine.

¶30

The learned counsel for the appellant raised a contention at the outset that the evidence tendered by the prosecution is absolutely insufficient to establish that 17 US currencies of 100 dollar denomination said to have been seized from the appellant, or for that matter, the entire lot of 78 currency notes, are counterfeit or forged ones. Therefore,

¶31

¶32

Crl.Appeal No.177 of 2013

¶33

it is contended that no offence under Section 489C of the IPC is attracted. It is submitted that the assertion of PW1, who detected the offence, that the seized currency notes were forged ones is not based on any personal information or material and when no other witness competent to depose against that fact is examined, what the prosecution can fall up on to prove that fact is only Ext.P6.

¶34

The finding in Ext.P6 report that the 78 US currency notes were counterfeit is attacked stating that the opinion is not based on any reliable data. When the author of Ext.P6 itself disclaim the responsibility, Ext.P6 cannot be placed reliance on. Accordingly, it is contended that the trial court went wrong in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 489C of the IPC.

¶35

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext.P1 prove the seizure of currency notes from the possession of respective accused and in the light of Ext.P6 a finding that the seized US dollars are counterfeit is justified in law and on facts.

¶36

¶37

Crl.Appeal No.177 of 2013

¶38

In Ext.P6, an Assistant Works Manager in Currency

¶39

Note Press, Nashik had given the report that the 78 US currency of 100 dollar denomination seized in this case are counterfeit. A few reasons in support of that finding are given, which are;

¶40

The size in length and width is not correct.

¶41

Paper used for printing is without Red and Blue colour fibres.

¶42

These Dollar Bills are printed by letter press printing process, hence printing is not raised and not recognisable by touch of hand. Printing is also very crude and broken at many places.

¶43

Numbering figures are very crude and does not match with genuine note numbering figures.

¶44

Fine design details, on fronts and backs, are missing at many places.

¶45

The author of the report concluded with a caveat that he was not equipped with up-to-date knowledge of the security features and reasoned specimen. It was further mentioned that on the basis of his expertise in Indian currency, such an opinion was given.

¶46

When the author of Ext.P6 himself is not sure about the security features and other aspects of US currency

¶47

¶48

Crl.Appeal No.177 of 2013

¶49

notes at the relevant period, entering a finding about the genuineness of the currency notes accepting the report in Ext.P6 alone is incorrect. Unless it is found conclusively that the said currency notes are counterfeit ones, a conviction for the offence under Section 489C of the IPC is not possible.

¶50

PW1 on the basis of his assumption only stated that the currency notes he seized as per Ext.P1 were counterfeit ones. As stated, the findings in Ext.P6 cannot be the sole basis for a finding that the said currency notes are counterfeit ones. Thus evidence is lacking to find conclusively that the currency notes seized from the possession of the appellant are counterfeit. Only if it is proved that the currency notes in question are counterfeit, the question whether the accused knew as to that fact and he had intention to use the same as genuine, germane for consideration.

¶51

In such circumstances, I find that the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 489C of the IPC is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. On

¶52

¶53

Crl.Appeal No.177 of 2013

¶54

setting aside the impugned judgment in S.C.No.356 of 2003, the appellant/3^rd accused is acquitted and set at liberty.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶57

dxy/dkr

Wilson @ Francis v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wilson @ Francis v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnan @ Vasanan Vs State of Kerala

Madhavan Vs State of Kerala

The Food Safety Officer Vs T.P.Kunhikannan

Nizar Vs State of Kerala

The Assistant Commissioner Vs Anis Mohammed Hussain

. Noushad Vs State of Kerala