A. Moidu Kunhi vs State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The appellant (accused 1) and accused 2 to 14 were tried for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Accused 3 and 8 were absconded. Therefore, case against them was separated.

The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused 2,4,6,7,9,10,11,12, 13 of aforestated offences.

The learned Sessions Judge has convicted accused 1 for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D of IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. Therefore, he is before this Court.

I have heard Sri Rahul Rai, learned Counsel for accused and learned Government Advocate for the State.

The appellant (accused 1) was tried for the aforestated offences on the allegations that on 26-5-1998, accused 1 in his house at Gurikana Mane, Ayyanakatte of Balila Village, Puttur Taluk was counterfeiting currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and Rs. 50/- denominations by using Colour Xerox Machine; accused 1 on 26-5-1998 and prior to it had circulated to various persons counterfeit currency notes as genuine currency notes; accused 1 was in possession of counterfeit currency notes knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged/counterfeit currency notes with an intention to use the same as genuine currency notes; on 26-5-1998, accused 1 was found in possession of instruments (Colour Xerox Machine and other materials) for making counterfeiting currency notes of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- denomination; accused 1 was also found in possession of a Revolver without licence for using the same for his unlawful activities.

The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D of IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act.

The State has not challenged the acquittal of accused 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of aforestated offences.

Therefore, following points would arise for determination:

(1) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused 1 on 26-5-1998 at about 10.30 a.m., in his said house found counterfeiting or knowingly performed the process of counterfeiting currency notes of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- denominations, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 489-A of IPC?

(2), Whether the prosecution further proves that accused 1 on or about 26-5-1998 and prior to it at his village and in some other place circulated counterfeit currency as genuine notes to various persons, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 489-B of IPC?

(3) Whether the prosecution further proves that accused 1 on 26-5-1998 and prior to it at his village had in his possession counterfeit currency notes knowing or having reason to believe the same to be counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 489-C of IPC?

(4) Whether the prosecution has further proved that accused 1 on or prior to 26-5-1998 at Ayyanakatte of Balila Village made or printed counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- and in order to print the same, he had possessed the instruments and other materials for the purpose of printing the said counterfeit notes, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 489-D of IPC?

(5) Whether the prosecution further proves that on 26-5-1998 accused 1 at Ayyanakatte of Balila Village was found in possession of revolver without possessing required licence for using unlawful object, thereby, committed an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act?

The prosecution has relied on evidence of Investigation Officers in particular, P.W. 7-B. Dayananda, P.W. 12-C.H. Vasantha, P.W. 16-K.B. Vishwanath and also evidence of independent witness namely P.W. 3-Umesh Wagle.

At the relevant time, P.W. 7-B. Dayananda was working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Puttur Circle. On 26-5-1998, during morning, he received credible information. Therefore, he secured P.W. 21-T.R. Jagannatha (CPI), P.W. 16-K.B. Vishwanath and other police constables and proceeded to Ayyanakatte of Balila Village in Puttur Taluk. P.W. 7 and other members of raiding party reached that place at about 10.30 a.m., on 26-5-1998. He secured two independent witnesses in the bus stop of Ayyanakatte. The raiding party proceeded to the house of Abdul Khader (father of accused 1) and in the southern room of that house a person was cutting the sheets on which Rs. 100/- denomination counterfeit currency notes were printed. That person (later identified as accused 1) tried to run away and he was apprehended. He revealed his name as Moidu Kunhi (accused 1). P.W. 7 and other members of raiding party searched the house from 11.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. During search, they found the following:

(1) Sheets on which Rs. 100/- counterfeit currency notes were printed.

(2) One Colour Xerox Machine for printing counterfeit currency notes.

(3) 5 Sheets on which counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination was printed.

(4) 3 Sheets on which counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were printed on one side.

The Investigation Officer seized the above incriminating articles. During search, he also found two Passports and Identity Card of the accused. The accused was also in possession of a Revolver. He did not possess licence or permit. There was a bullet in the revolver. In addition to the above incriminating articles, accused was also found in possession of a cutting Machine, colour cartridges, a die, 3 injected print cartridges. These machines and other articles were used for counterfeiting currency notes of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- denominations. P.W. 7 arrested the accused and seized the aforestated incriminating articles.

The independent witness namely P.W. 3-Umesh Wagle has not given minute details of search however, he has given broad features of search and seizure of aforestated incriminating articles from the house of accused. He has also deposed about presence of accused. The substratum of evidence given by P.W. 3 would lend corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 7. The other members of raiding party namely P.W. 12-Vasantha and P.W. 16-K.B. Vishwanath have given evidence regarding search and seizure of above incriminating articles from the possession of accused.

P.W. 12-Vasantha has deposed; that at the relevant time, he was working as a Head Constable of Puttur Town Police Station; on 26-5-1998, he was taken to the Office of Dy. S.P. The Sub-inspector of Police and Circle Inspector of Police were also secured by Dy. S.P.; they were taken to the house of accused in Ayyanakatte; the accused was sitting in a room on southern side of the house; he was cutting the sheets on which fake currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were printed; the accused tried to run away after seeing the raiding party however, the raiding party apprehended him; accused 1 was found in possession of a printing machine and other articles necessary to print fake currency notes; the accused was found in possession of sheets on which fake currency notes of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- denomination were printed on one side; the accused had concealed a revolver in a utensil in the kitchen and there was a bullet; P.W. 7 seized the above incriminating articles; the accused and incriminating articles were brought to police station.

At the relevant time, P.W. 16-K.B. Vishwanath was working as the Sub-Inspector of Sulya Police Station. P.W. 16 has deposed that on 26-5-1998 during morning hours, Assistant Police Inspector (P.W. 7), P.W. 16 and other police officials proceeded to the house of accused situated near Ayyanakatte of Bali Village. Accused 1 was sitting in a room of his house and he was cutting sheets on which currency notes of 50 and 100 rupees notes were printed. P.W. 16 secured two independent witnesses. They searched house of accused and found-that accused was in possession of following incriminating materials:

(1) colour Xerox Machine.

(2) blank sheets for counterfeiting currency notes.

(3) sheets on which counterfeit currency notes of 50 and 100 rupees notes were printed on either sides.

(4) sheets on which counterfeiting currency notes of 50 and 100 rupees notes were printed on one side.

(5) paper cutters, scales and gadgets.

The Passport, Ration Card, Voter ID Card of accused were seized. The entire search and seizure was videographed. The seized articles were brought to police station.

As could be seen from cross-examination of P.Ws. 7, 12 and 16, the defence has made an unsuccessful attempt to prove that accused was not found in possession of the above incriminating articles; P.W. 7 who had seized the above incriminating articles in some other case had planted the same foist a case against accused. The evidence of aforestated witnesses regarding search and seizure of the above incriminating articles in house of accused has not been contraverted. The defence of accused that the above incriminating articles were planted by Investigating Officer to foist a case against accused cannot be accepted. The evidence on record does not disclose that Investigating Officer had any grudge or grievance against accused to falsely implicate them for the aforestated offences.

The learned Counsel for accused has submitted that P.W. 7 had conducted search and seizure and he has submitted the report (first information). Therefore, first informant himself was the Investigating Officer. The evidence of P.W. 7 does not inspire confidence. It is true that P.W. 7 has conducted the search and submitted report. However, he had handed over the further investigating to the P.W. 23-K.B. Chandrappa.

At the relevant time, P.W. 19-Syed Askar Emam was working as Handwriting and Document Expert in FSL, Bangalore. He had examined currency notes seized from possession of accused. P.W. 19 has assigned reasons and has opined that currency notes seized from possession of accused are fake currency notes. During cross-examination, the competence of P.W. 19 to examine and give opinion has been called into question. P.W. 19 has deposed that he was working as an handwriting expert. He had undergone training in examination and identification of counterfeit currency notes at Security Printing Press of Nasik and also Bank Note Press "Devas" in Madhya Pradesh. In my considered opinion, the training undergone by P.W. 19 with his professional background and his previous experience is sufficient to hold that P.W. 19 was competent to examine the counterfeit currency notes and give his opinion.

At the relevant time, P.W. 15-Belliyappa Gowda was working as the Village Accountant of Bali Village. He has given house demand register extract elating to house in which raid was conducted. P.W. 15 has deposed that father of accused, namely, Abdul Khader was the khatedar of property. The said Abdul Khader, his wife, children namely, Abubukar and A. Moidu Kunhi (accused) were residing in his house. The evidence of P.W. 15 has not been controverted.

The accused has filed written statement of defence inter alia stating that he was not living in house of his father, namely, Abdul Khader situate in Ayyanakatte of Bali Village. The accused was driver by occupation and he was living separately from his father. In my considered opinion, the defence taken by accused is an afterthought. During cross-examination of the aforestated witnesses, it was not even suggested to them that accused was living elsewhere.

The order sheet maintained by learned Magistrate would reveal that on 26-5-1998 the accused was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at 4.40 p.m. The accused was remanded to police custody till 2-6-1998. It is not the case of accused that he was arrested from elsewhere and he was fixed in this case. The contention of accused that the Investigating Officer having seized the aforestated incriminating articles from possession of some other accused had made use of the same to foist a case against accused, cannot be accepted.

The learned Counsel for accused relying on newspaper report would submit that Colour Xerox Machine seized in some other case were used to foist a case against accused. The law is fairly well-settled that information contained in newspaper is secondhand secondary evidence. The alleged newspaper of which the aforestated information was published was not produced before the Court below. On the other hand, the newspaper titled "Suddi Bidugade" found in the records would reveal that counterfeit currency notes and aforestated incrimination articles were seized from the house of accused in Ayyanakatte.

The accused was found in possession of revolver without licence. The District Magistrate has accorded permission to prosecute accused for offences under Arms Act. The accused has not offered any explanation for being in possession of unlicensed weapon. In the background of activities that were carried by accused, the Sessions Judge has held that accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 498-D of IPC and also of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of Arms Act.

The learned Counsel for accused would submit that accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for offences punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-B and 489-D of IPC and to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years for offence punishable u/s 489-C. The learned Counsel would submit that sentence of imprisonment may be reduced having regard to the fact that accused is young and he has chances to reform himself. The learned Government Advocate would oppose the same. The evidence on record would reveal that accused was equipped with Colour Xerox Machine and other articles necessary to print fake currency notes. In fact, he had printed and circulated fake currency notes. When house was raided, accused was found in possession of large number of sheets on which counterfeit currency notes were printed on either sides and on some sheets currency notes was printed on one side. The accused was engaged in counterfeiting currency notes on large scale. The accused has committed offences against the nation. There are no mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.