Dismissed

Sabella Srinivasa Reddy , Babi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Aug 2014CRLRC/1042/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC. The court rejected arguments based on the absence of independent witnesses and procedural lapses, relying on evidence of possession and presumptions of knowledge, dispensing with the need for corroboration under Section 100 Cr.P.C. as the case was based on re

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; conviction and sentence of the appellate court confirmed; Trial Court directed to apprehend the accused for the unexpired portion of the sentence.

Sabella Srinivasa Reddy , Babi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

[HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1042 OF 2007 Dated 21-8-2014

¶2

Between: Sabbella Srinivasa Reddy @ Babi.

¶3

..Petitioner.

¶4

And:

¶5

State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public . prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶6

…Respondent.

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1042 OF 2007 ORDER:

¶8

This revision is against judgment dated 24-7-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.122 of 2006 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry whereunder Judgment dated 125-2006 in S.C.No.357 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry is confirmed to the extent of conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to six months.

¶9

Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town (CCS) of Rajahmundry filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 24-4-2000 at about 4.45 P.M., on receipt of reliable information, Inspector of Police (C.C.S.) of Rajahmundry along with mediators and staff proceeded to the bus shelter opposite to Rajahmundry Railway Station by about 5 P.M., and noticed the accused trying to flee away on seeing the police and on suspicion, the Inspector of Police caught hold of the accused, arrested him and found 35 fake 100 rupee currency notes in his possession and on interrogation, he confessed

¶10

about his acquaintance with one Chintapalli Butchi Reddy of Visakhapatnam who collected fake currency 100 rupee notes from one Selvaraju of Madhurai and gave such 50 fake 100 rupee currency notes to him and he spent 15 notes out of them, on that a report is drafted and same is registered as crime No.54 of 2000 and investigation revealed that the accused is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Sections 489-C and 489-B IPC. On these allegations, four witnesses are examined and three documents are marked on behalf of prosecution besides two M.Os. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is marked. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/for each offence. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry and VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed the conviction in respect of offence under Section 489-C I.P.C. and reduced the sentence of three years imprisonment to six months but set aside the conviction under Section 489-B IPC. Now, aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred. Heard both sides.

¶11

Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that police have not examined any independent witnesses though the alleged place of arrest is a very busy locality and further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses and there are no independent witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. He further submitted that P.W.1 is V.A.O., P.W.2 is Inspector of Police, P.W.3 is expert who examined counterfeit currency notes and gave opinion and P.W.4 is Investigating Officer. He further submitted that there is no

¶12

evidence to show that revision petitioner had used these counterfeit currency notes or he had knowledge as to the genuineness of the currency notes, therefore, Section 489-C IPC is not attracted and the appellate court having extended benefit of doubt for the offence under Section 489-B IPC ought to have extended the same for the offence under Section 489-C I.P.C. and therefore, the conviction is liable to be set aside.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Public prosecutor submitted that P.W.1 is an independent mediator and his evidence is supported and corroborated with the other prosecution witnesses and both the courts rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings with regard to conviction for the offence under Section 489-C I.P.C.

¶14

Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper? POINT:

¶15

According to prosecution, on 24-4-2000, P.W.2 on information proceeded to bus shelter opposite to Rajahmundry railway station along with P.W.1 and another mediator and his staff and found the accused running away on seeing the police and he was caught and on search, they found accused in possession of 35 fake 100 rupee currency notes.

¶16

The first and foremost objection of the revision petitioner is that no independent witnesses are examined and the police have not followed Section 100 Cr.P.C. and therefore, it is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶17

On the other hand, it is the contention of learned Public prosecutor that police proceeded to the spot on information, therefore, they have gone there along with mediators, and therefore, the objection of the revision petitioner is not tenable.

¶18

It is the specific case of prosecution that P.W.2 proceeded to the place of arrest on receipt of reliable information. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.2 that he collected P.W.1 and another before proceeding to the place of arrest. This P.W.1 is Assistant Village Officer who deposed that on 24-4-2000, P.W.2 sent a word to him and on that, he went to police station and followed P.W.2 to the bus shelter opposite to Rajahmundry railway station and there, on seeing them, a person tried to abscond himself and that P.W.2 and his staff chased him and arrested him and on that, the said person was searched in his presence and he was found in possession of 35 fake currency notes of 100 denomination and along with him, one Balaji was also present and acted as mediator and police drafted mediators report and Ex.P.1 is the same. He further deposed that accused is the same person arrested under Ex.P.1. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of revision petitioner, but nothing could be elicited from him to doubt his testimony. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of P.W.1 on any of the important material aspects like reaching place of arrest, search of the accused and recovery of fake currency notes. This part of evidence of P.W.1 is fully supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2 who is the Inspector of Police. The fake currency notes seized from possession of accused were sent to Forensic Laboratory and according the evidence of P.W.3, these notes are fake currency notes. So a reading of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would reveal that the accused was found in possession of M.Os.1 and 2 which are fake currency notes.

¶19

One of the objection of advocate for revision petitioner is that as there is no evidence to show that the accused had knowledge that these currency notes are counterfeit currency notes, the ingredients of Section 489C IPC are not attracted. It is also contended that as there

¶20

is no evidence to show that the accused had intended to use the notes as genuine or reason to believe that he may use them as genuine, the ingredients of Section 489-C IPC are not attracted. But the objection of the advocate for revision petitioner cannot be accepted because having found in possession of fake currency notes, it is for him to explain as to how these currency notes have come into possession. When possession of counterfeit currency notes is proved, the presumption would be that he is in possession of those notes knowingly. If the revision petitioner was in possession of genuine currency notes and out of them, some were fake, then there must be some force in saying that the accused had no knowledge about the genuineness of the currency notes. Accused has not given any valid account for possessing them, on the contra, he gave a statement showing the way in which he got currency notes which reveal that he had knowledge of possessing fake currency notes. In fact, this objection was raised before the appellate court and the learned appellate judge has rightly discarded the objection and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court.

¶21

On a close scrutiny of material, I am of the view that both the trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 489C and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.

¶22

For these reasons, the revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellate court. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.

¶23

As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶24

____________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI

KUMAR

Dated 21-8-2014.

Dvs.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶29

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1042 OF 2007 Dated 21-8-2014

¶30

Dvs

Sabella Srinivasa Reddy , Babi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabella Srinivasa Reddy , Babi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Ramisetti Babitha Vs Smt. R.Kalpana

Peerlagudem Gopal, Vs The State of A.P.

Kola Seetha Ramaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Muddasani Karan, Vs The State of A.P.

G.M. S.C.Railways Union of India Sec/Nad Vs a.Swaroopa Rani Shamshabad R.R.Dt

Dulala Govindu , Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh