State vs Hasenabegum, Radha, Sasikala and Ganesan

M. Chockalingam, J.—Challenging the judgement of acquittal of respondents 1 to 4 made by the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track

Court-II, Chennai in S.C. No. 479/2006, the State has brought forth this appeal.

The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

(a) P.W.1 was the resident of Dhiwan Bahsiyam street Saidapet, Chennai. On 2.7.2004 at 9.00 p.m., when P.W.1 was selling ice in a cart at

Karaneeshwarar Koil Street, A1 asked for change for Rs. 100/-. P.W.1 also gave change. When A1 was moving from the place, P.W.1 noticed

that Rs. 100/- note given by A1 looked different. Immediately, he showed the said currency to P.W.2 and also to P.W.3. They also told that the

said currency note looked different. Immediately, they caught hold of A1 and questioned her. A1 gave back the change to P.W.1 and got back the

100 rupee counterfeit currency note. Further, P.Ws 1 to 3 found, 24 such 100 currencies in her money purse. Immediately, P.Ws. 1 to 3 took A1

to J1 Saidapet Police Station and handed over A1 along with a complaint Ex.P1 to the Police. Those 24 counterfeit Rs. 100/- counterfeit currency

notes were marked as M.O.1 series.

(b) P.W.5 Inspector of Police, Guindy Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 654/2004 u/s 489-B & C

I.P.C. and arrested A1 and recovered 24 numbers of counterfeit notes from her under Form 95 before P.Ws. 2 and 3. The F.I.R. registered by

him was filed as Ex.P8. The confessional statement given by A1 was recorded before P.W.2 and P.W.3 The admissible part of the confessional

statement was marked as Ex.P9. Following the confessional statement, A1 identified A2. When A2 was arrested, he came forward to give the

confessional statement voluntarily and the same was recorded and 113 counterfeit numbers of 100 rupee counterfeit currency notes were seized

under a mahazar and on the same day he arrested A3 who gave confessional statement and the same was recorded and 10 numbers of 100 rupee

currency notes were seized from A3 under a mahazar and on 6.7.2004, A4 was arrested in front of Race course, Chennai and the confessional

statement given by A4 was recorded. On 3.7.2004, the accused were sent for judicial remand. The counterfeit currencies recovered were also

sent to Court through Form 95. On 6.7.2004, A4 was arrested. The confessional statement given by A4 was also recorded. A4 was also sent for

judicial remand. On completion of the investigation, P.W.5 made a requisition before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, for sending 147

counterfeit currency notes to India Security Press, Maharashtra State for examination.

(c) The case was transferred to C.B.C.I.D. for further investigation. The Assistant Works Manager in India, Security and Currency Note Press,

Nasik was examined as P.W.6 and he has stated that on 24.5.2005 he received a requisition from IX Metropolitan Magistrate in a sealed cover

with letter from and also 147 numbers of 100 rupee notes for examination and opinion. After receiving the same, the pockets were opened. The

notes were examined and after exercise of the test, he came to the conclusion that those notes were counterfeit notes. The experts opinion was

marked as Ex.P.14.

(d) On 18.8.2005, P.W.7 Inspector of C.B.C.I.D. of Counterfeit Currency Wing, took up further investigation and on 30.8.2005, after receipt of

the expert opinion, filed the charge sheet against the accused.

(e) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges against the accused,

the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and relied on 14 exhibits and 3 material objects viz., M.O.1 series- 24 counterfeit notes, M.O.2 series- 10

counterfeit notes and M.O.3 series- 113 counterfeit notes. After completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were

questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on

either side and took the view that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused/respondents herein.

Hence, this appeal at the instance of the State.

Advancing the arguments on behalf of the State, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial Court has taken an erroneous

view that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 to prove the fact that A1

was in possession of the counterfeit currency notes and she was caught red handed and was produced before the respondent Police. On arrest,

she has produced M.O.1 series-24 counterfeit currency notes. Pursuant to the confession of A1, all the three accused were arrested and at the

time of arrest, they gave confessional statement. M.O.2 series- counterfeit currency notes were recovered from A2 and equally M.O.3 series-

counterfeit currency notes were recovered from A3 and all these counterfeit currency notes were sent for test to the Government of India, Ministry

of Finance Currency Note Press, Nasik Road and the same were examined through P.W.6 and the report Ex.P.14 given by the press was

marked. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the accused were in possession of the counterfeit currency notes.

Added further learned Counsel, it is true that there was certain discrepancies but they were very minor. The trial Court has given undue

weightage to those discrepancies and recorded the order of acquittal which has got to be set aside. The trial Court was erroneous in stating that the

prosecution failed to prove that the places from where the recoveries were effected from A2 and A3 belonged to A2 and A3. It is pertinent to

point out that no such proof was necessary and the recovery, at the instance of the accused, was alone important. In the instant case, all the

necessary ingredients u/s 489-B & C were actually proved, since the possession of the counterfeit currency with the accused was actually

established and A1 has also made an attempt to change the same to lesser denomination and it would be indicative of the fact that the accused

knew that they were counterfeit currency and she also attempted to use them as genuine. Under such circumstances, the trial Court should have

found the accused guilty, but have acquitted them. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside and the accused have got to be

dealt with properly in accordance with law.

The Court heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the

submissions made.

The gist of the case of the prosecution, as could be seen above, was that on 2.7.2004, at about 9.30 p.m. A1 approached P.W.1 who was

selling ice in a cart and asked change for 100 rupee note. P.Ws. 2 and 3 were also present at that time. Accordingly. P.W.1 gave change but when

P.W.1 looked at the 100 rupee note it looked different. The same fact was ascertained by P.Ws. 2 and 3 Immediately, they caught A1 and

searched her bag which contained 24 counterfeit notes of 100 rupees denomination and they produced A1 before P.W.5 Inspector of Police in the

Police Station who registered a case against her. On confession, the said currency notes, 24 in number, were seized under a mahazar and they are

marked as M.O.1 series. Following the same, A2 and A3 were arrested and the counterfeit currency notes were recovered from them and they

were marked as M.O.2 and M.O.3 series. A4 was also arrested. The trial Court has made an order of acquittal of the accused stating that the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It is needless to say when the trial Court has rendered an order of acquittal ordinarily the appellate Court should not disturb the judgement

unless and until it is perverse or the judgement of acquittal was not based on acceptable reasons. P.W.1 has categorically deposed that A1 gave

100 rupee currency note and asked for change. Accordingly, he gave the change and thereafter, P.W.1 entertained suspicion over the said 100

rupee currency note and he called back A1 and handed over the same. A1 got back the change. In that regard, P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined

before the trial Court. The evidence of P.W.1 to 3 regarding the above relevant fact was found to be discrepant on material aspects. According to

P.W.5 on 2.7.2007 at 9.30 p.m. P.W.1 accompanied by P.Ws.2 and 3 handed over A1 and 24 number of 100 rupee counterfeit notes along with

the complaint. On the contrary P.W.1 has spoken only about the production of A1 and he has not whispered about the production of 24

counterfeit currency note. Thus, it is highly doubtful whether A1 was produced and whether the counterfeit currency notes were produced by

P.W.1 or by the accused. Though it was claimed by the investigating officer that A1 gave confessional statement and the same was recorded

before P.Ws.2 and 3, it was the case of prosecution that P.Ws.1 to 3 took A1 to the police station. Thus, neither the confession recorded nor the

alleged recovery of 24 counterfeit currency note was made in the presence of any other independent witness.

P.W.3 claimed to be an auto driver but his driving licence was not produced. According to the investigating officer, 113 counterfeit currency

notes were recovered from A2. But when the witness was examined regarding the recovery namely P.W. 2, he was unable to say, how many 100

rupee counterfeit notes were recovered from A2. In order to substantiate the confession statement of A2, A3 and A4, the same witnesses were

examined. Though P.W.5 has claimed that the said counterfeit currency note marked as M.O.2 series were from the hut of A2 and the counterfeit

currency note marked as M.O.3 were recovered from the house of A3, no material was placed before the trial Court that the hut or the house

belonged to A2 and A3 respectively or they were residing or staying over there on the alleged date of recovery. Thus, insofar as the recovery of

M.O.1 series from A1 is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 is discrepant and the recovery of M.O.2 and M.O.3 series from A2 and A3

itself is highly doubtful. Under such circumstances, it cannot be stated that A1 to A3 were in possession of the counterfeit currency notes as

putforth by the prosecution. So long as the said fact of possession was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the court is afraid to render the order

of conviction. In the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the said fact.

Under such circumstances, the trial Court is correct in passing the order of acquittal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court has got to be

confirmed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgement of acquittal passed by the trial Court.