State vs Shankaraiah Gudi and Others

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court-II, Koppal in S.C. No. 23/2003, acquitting the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 5 of charges leveled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of Indian Penal Code.

According to the case of the prosecution, on 23.11.2002, when CW14 - Sri M.P. Naik, Dy. S.P., PW9 -Vithal D. Irani, Circle Inspector, Kushtagi, PW6 - Sri Hanamantharao Kulkarni, PSI were in Tavaragera Police Station, they received credible information about five persons trying to circulate counterfeit currency notes. Immediately they secured the presence of PW5 - Prakash Rao and CW6 - Veerabhadrappa to the police station, appraised them about the credible information they had received and requested them to act as panchas, for which they agreed. Thereafter, police party along with panch witnesses went near the bus stand of Tavaragera and there they were informed that three men and two women went towards Kannika Parameshwari talkies. Immediately the raiding party went near Kannika Parameshwari talkies and there they saw three men and two women going in a group with bags in their possession. Soon after seeing the police jeep and police party, two of the men ran away from the place. Though-the police party chased them, they escaped. However, the another man and two women were caught hold by the police, On interrogation, they disclosed their names and identity as accused Nos. 1,4 and 5. Thereafter, in the presence of panchas, PW6 conducted the personal search of accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and they were found in possession of the 366 counterfeit currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-. In addition, they were also found possessing. some genuine notes All those notes were seized and sealed in a cloth bag. Accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 disclosed the names of accused Nos. 2 and 3 as the two men who ran away from the place and escaped. Thereafter, the PSI returned to the police station along with accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and seized articles and on the basis of the panchanama drawn at the spot registered the case in Crime No. 15/2002 for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons.

PW7 - Murulidhar who took up further investigation of the case recorded the statement of the witnesses PWs 1 to 3. PW1 is a fruit vendor on a push cart while PWs 2 and 3 are the owners of pan Beeda shop. Investigation revealed that the accused persons had circulated few of the counterfeit currency notes to PWs 1 to 3 after purchasing certain articles from them. During investigation, PW7 subjected the seized currency notes for examination by PW4, RBI official who submitted his opinion to the effect that the seized notes are all counterfeit and fake notes and they are not genuine notes. During investigation, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also apprehended and on completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the accused pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried.

During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and relied on the documents at Exs. P1 to P15 and marked. M. Os. 1 to 382. During their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the--evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused did not lead any defense evidence.

After hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment and order dated 25.11.2005 acquitted all the accused of the charges leveled against them on the ground that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the possession of counterfeit currency notes by any of the accused persons, nor the prosecution has proved the circulation of the counterfeit currency notes by any of the accused persons by cogent and acceptable evidences. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State is in appeal before this Court.

We have heard the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused and perused the records.

As noticed supra, the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused, placed reliance on the testimony of PW5 who was stated to be an independent panch witness for the recovery of the counterfeit currency notes and the evidence of PW6 as well as PW9, the police officials who conducted the raid. In addition, the prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW4, the official of RBI who examined the seized currency notes and furnished his opinion as to its genuineness.

PWs 1 to 3 were examined to prove the alleged circulation of the counterfeit currency notes. But unfortunately for the prosecution, PWs 1 to 3 and 5 did not support the case of the prosecution. They were declared hostile and they were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. However, in the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from those witnesses, which would advance the case of the prosecution.

Thus, what remained before the trial Court was the evidence of PWs. 4, 6 and 9. Of course from the evidence of PW 4, official of RBI and the report submitted by him, it is clearly established that the notes sent for his examination are all counterfeit fake currency notes and they were not genuine notes. However, prosecution in order to connect these counterfeit currency notes to the accused persons will have to establish that those counterfeit currency notes were in possession of accused and they were sized form their possession. In this regard, except the evidence of PW6, there is no acceptable evidence placed by the prosecution. The other independent panch witness to the seizure mahazer Ex. P11 has not been examined by the prosecution. The only independent panch witness examined as PW5 did not support the case of the prosecution. Of course PW6, PSI in his oral evidence has re-iterated the case of the prosecution in its entirety. But the learned Sessions Judge on perusal of the oral evidence of PW6 and on appreciation of the oral evidence of PW9 and the contents of the mahazer, has come to the conclusion that the evidence of PW6 is not reliable. In addition to this, the learned Sessions Judge has also held that in the absence of the evidence of independent witnesses, the sole testimony of PW6, who was a member of the raiding party cannot be the basis for finding the accused guilty of the offences alleged against them.

PW9 who was the CPI at the relevant point of time though said to have been present at the time of the seizure of the counterfeit currency notes from the possession of the accused, in his evidence before the Court did not specifically depose anything about the seizure. According to the evidence of PW9, PSI conducted the personal search of the accused and seized the counterfeit currency notes. Except the say of PWs 6 and 9 that PW9 was present, there is no material on record to indicate the presence of PW9 at the spot. The perusal of the mahazer Ex. P11 shows that PW9 has not subscribed his signature to the said mahazer. If really PW9 was present at the spot, he being, one of the senior Police Officers, ought to have subscribed his signature to the mahazer which would have supported his presence. The Dy. S.P., who was stated to be present at the spot at the time of seizure has not been examined before the Court.

Perusal of the mahazer Ex. P11, as noticed by the learned Sessions Judge, clearly indicates that there is some interpolation with regard to the alleged sealing of the currency notes. From the evidence of PW4, it is noticed that the currency notes, which were sent to him for examination, were found in 8 separate sealed covers. However, the reading of Ex. P11 does not indicate that the currency notes alleged to have been seized from the possession of accused Nos. 1, 2 and. 5 were kept in 8 separate covers and they were sealed. On the other hand, the interpolated portion in Ex. P11 would only indicate that all 366 counterfeit currency notes were kept in a cloth bag and it was sealed. There is no indication in Ex. P11 that on the sealed cloth bag a chit containing signature of the panchas had been pasted. It is not the case of the prosecution that on each of the seized counterfeit currency notes signature of the panchas are obtained.

Thus, as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the evidence placed by the prosecution does not satisfactorily establish the seizure of the M. Os. 1 to 366 from the possession of the accused. It is also pertinent to note here that, even as per the case of the prosecution, accused Nos. 2 and 3 escaped from the place. The identity of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 said to have been disclosed by accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5. Though according to the Investigating Officer, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were apprehended during investigation, nothing was recovered from their possession. It is not indicated as to how the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were involved in the crime. The only basis on which the accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been charge sheeted was the alleged disclosures said to have been made by accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5. Even according to the Investigating Officer, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not even interrogated and questioned as to their involvement in the crime.

Having regard to the nature of evidence placed. by the prosecution, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the accused. The judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is sound and is in accordance with the evidence on record. Therefore, it does not call for interference by this Court.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.