Trial court convicted two appellants for possessing counterfeit notes based solely on the detecting officer's testimony and an expert report. The appellate court found no evidence establishing intention to use the notes as genuine and acquitted both on benefit of doubt.
Conviction set aside; appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt.
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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 19TH POUSHA, 1945
CRL.APPEAL NO. 2302 OF 2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2007 IN SC 520/2004 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSN.COURT (ADHOC-II), KASARAGODE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 C.I. MOIDU, S/O. IBRAHIM, ETAMUGAR VALLAPPADY, BEYPORE VILLAGE,, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2 HASSANAR, S/O. ABDULLA POTIPPALAM HOUSE, VALLAPADY, BEYPORE VILLAGE,, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SMT SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 09.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.Appeal No.2302 of 2007
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.Appeal No.2302 of 2007
----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9th day of January, 2024
JUDGMENT
The appellants challenge the conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 489C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod, as per the judgment dated 19.11.2007.
At 8.30 a.m. on 20.09.1996 the appellants were found in possession of ten counterfeit notes; the 1st appellant had four currency notes and the 2nd appellant had six. Finding that the said currency notes were counterfeit ones, they were arrested
by PW1 and seized the notes by preparing Ext.P1 seizure
3
Crl.Appeal No.2302 of 2007
mahazar. After registering a crime as per Ext.P2, investigation was handed over to the CBCID. PW5 conducted the initial investigation. He recorded statements of the witnesses and submitted a forwarding note for getting the currency notes examined at the Currency Note Press, Dewas. The investigation was completed by PW6.
4
Crl.Appeal No.2302 of 2007
found in possession of MO1 series notes. Ext.P7 is the report obtained from the Currency Note Press, as per which MO1 series were reported to be counterfeit ones. Based on that report and the evidence tendered by PW1, the court below
held that the charge levelled against the appellants was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, they were convicted and sentenced.
5
Crl.Appeal No.2302 of 2007
while dealing with the question whether uncorroborated testimony of an official witness is enough to record a conviction, the Apex Court held that where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence
6
Crl.Appeal No.2302 of 2007
and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lent corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. The Apex Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) [AIR 2003 SC 1311] while confronted with a similar situation held that the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down. Such a view was reiterated by the Apex Court in Baldev Singh vs State of Haryana [(2015) 17 SCC 554] .
7
Crl.Appeal No.2302 of 2007
8
Crl.Appeal No.2302 of 2007
contents of Ext.P1 tally with the oral testimony of PW1 in court.
9
Crl.Appeal No.2302 of 2007
notes. Thus, the evidence tendered by the prosecution has proved that the appellants were in possession of MO1 series and the said currency notes are counterfeit notes.
10
Crl.Appeal No.2302 of 2007
possesses counterfeit notes, an inference that they intended to use the same as genuine is very much possible. But in order to sustain a criminal charge, such an inference is not enough. There must be materials, atleast in the form of a positive assertion by the detecting officer or someone else, who could have such an inference, states in court regarding such intention of the accused. The intention being the state of mind, cannot easily be deciphered. But the circumstances which would establish the existence of such an intention, atleast, should have been brought on record by the prosecution.
11
Crl.Appeal No.2302 of 2007
establish beyond doubt the aforesaid ingredient of the offence. The benefit of such a doubt has to be extended to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are liable to be acquitted, extending them the benefit of doubt.
the judgment dated 09.11.2007 in S.C.No.520 of 2004 of the court below, the appellants are acquitted.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether possession of counterfeit currency notes suffices for offence under S.489C IPC absent evidence the accused intended to use them as genuine.
Whether seizure by a lone official witness without corroborating witnesses can sustain conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tahir v. State (Delhi)Relied on¶8
[(1996) 3 SCC 338] · Who else cites this
Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)Relied on¶8
[AIR 2003 SC 1311] · Who else cites this
Baldev Singh vs State of HaryanaRelied on¶8
[(2015) 17 SCC 554] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
C.I. Moidu
Hassanar
State of Kerala rep. by its Public Prosecutor
P.G. Ajithkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
