Partly allowed

Jayaprasad P. v. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Pros

Kerala HC12 Jan 2024CRL.A/955/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal in part, modifying the sentence from two years to one year of rigorous imprisonment while upholding the conviction and charge of possession of counterfeit currency.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, with the period of custody set off against the sentence.

Jayaprasad P. Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Pros — Kerala HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 22ND POUSHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.A NO. 955 OF 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.05.2007 IN SC 645/2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

¶7

SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA

¶8

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

JAYAPRASAD P., S/O BALAN
AGED 43 YEARS, PADIPPURAKKAL VEEDU,, KEEZHOOR AMSOM,
PAYANCHERI DESOM, IRITTY,, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULALM,
REPRESENTING S.H.O., VADAKARA POLICE STATION.
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

SR GP PUSHPALATHA MK

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl. Appeal No.955 of 2007

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2024

¶19

The appellant who stands convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is the appellant. He was tried on a charge that he was found in possession of 18 counterfeit currency notes of 100 rupees denomination at about 1.00 p.m. on 19.01.2004 near Sampoorna Hotel situated near the north new bus stand Vadakara.

¶20

The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7, proved Exts.P1 to P8 and identified MOs 1 to 7. Based on that evidence, the trial court found the appellant guilty and convicted. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

¶21

The appellant assails the judgment of conviction and sentence on various grounds. It is contended that the evidence tendered by the prosecution is insufficient to prove conscious possession of the counterfeit notes by the appellant. Excepting the evidence of PW2, the detecting officer alone is available to prove the allegation against the appellant. Evidence of both

¶22

Crl. Appeal No.955 of 2007

¶23

¶24

PWs 1 and 2 is not credit worthy. The court below without considering such nature of the evidence of PW1 placed reliance on it and entered a conviction. The court below also did not consider the inordinate delay in forwarding the seized currency notes for examination by the expert and the prejudice thereby caused to the appellant.

¶25

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

¶26

It was PW1, Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakara Police Station, who arrested the appellant and effected the seizure. He deposed before the court that on the basis of a reliable information, he intercepted the appellant at about 1.00 p.m. on 19.01.2004 at the place of occurrence. He has deposed in details regarding the circumstances in which 18 currency notes were seized from the possession of the appellant. Ext.P1 is the mahazar prepared by him regarding the seizure. PW2 is a witness to the seizure. He subscribed Ext.P1 mahazar also.

¶27

PW2 is a street vendor near the bus stand at Vadakara. He is a natural witness. He deposed before the court regarding the arrest of the accused and seizure of currency notes from him. Both PWs 1 and 2 were cross examining in

¶28

Crl. Appeal No.955 of 2007

¶29

¶30

detail but their evidence withstood the searching cross examination. When the evidence of PW2, whose credibility is unimpeached, is available to corroborate the evidence of the detecting officer, PW1, the findings entered into by the trial court that the appellant was found in possession of 18 counterfeit notes cannot be found faultly. The contemporaneous document, Ext.P2 mahazar prepared by PW1 renders further support to his evidence. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfer with the finding of the trial court that MO7 series currency notes were seized from the possession of the appellant as alleged in the charge.

¶31

MO1 series were forwarded for examination to the Security Press, Nasik as per Ext.P7 forwarding note. Ext.P8 is the report. It was reported that the said currency notes are counterfeit ones. As per Section 292 of the Code, the said report is liable to be acted upon even without formal proof. The report confirms that MO7 series notes are counterfeit ones.

¶32

From the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has proved that the appellant possessed 17 counterfeit currency notes of 100 rupees denomination.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the

¶34

Crl. Appeal No.955 of 2007

¶35

¶36

decision in Karunakarn Nadar v. State of Kerala [2002 (2) KLT 898] in order to contend that MO7 series notes cannot termed as forged or counterfeit ones, but only documents resembling currency notes and therefore the offence that may constitute is one punishable under Section 489E of the IPC alone. When Ext.P8 report says that MO7 series currency notes are counterfeit ones, this Court cannot hold that the said notes are not counterfeit ones unless there is sufficient reason to discard the report. The description of the questioned notes in Ext.P8 would show that for all practical purposes MO1 currency notes resembles the Bank notes/currency notes. Therefore, the said contention of the appellant was rightly repelled by the court below.

¶37

In the above circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the court below leading to the conviction of the appellant.

¶38

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the sentence imposed on the appellant is wholly disproportionate especially considering the age and circumstances of the appellant. This offcence was committed in the year 2004. The appellant is now aged 62 years. He has

¶39

Crl. Appeal No.955 of 2007

¶40

¶41

undergone the ordeal of trial and this appeal all throughout. Considering the aforesaid aspects along with the gravity of the offence committed, I am of the view that the sentence is liable to be modified.

¶42

Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The appeal is allowed to that extent. The period during which he was in custody for the purpose of this case is set off against the sentence.

¶43

The appeal is allowed, as above, in part.

¶44

Sd/P.G.AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶45

SMF

Jayaprasad P. v. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Pros

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprasad P. v. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Pros

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Shamshada Vs State of Kerala

Haris Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Another

M.Haridasan Vs Kumaran

K.J.Xavier Vs E.v.Thomas

Saju Joseph Vs v.K.Padmanabhan

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala