IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 365 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------ CP.NO.57/2007 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- VIMAL CHANDRAN, S/O SATHYANANDAN, 'ASWINS', PANGAPPARA MANAVILA ROAD, AMBEDKERPURAM, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR.M.REVIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.J. MUHAMMED ANSAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.365 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 12th November 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in C.P.57/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram taken cognizance for the offence under Section 489 B and C read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A final report. Prosecution case is that petitioner had entrusted his Ambassador car KRO.4335 to S.S. Servicing Center and while, it was being serviced by the second accused, he found a packet of currency notes kept inside iron box, inside the car concealed and it was entrusted by second accused to the petitioner who in turn entrusted it to third accused to be changed to genuine currency notes from Reserve Bank of India and therefore, accused tried to change the counterfeit notes from Reserve Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram branch and all the accused thereby committed the offence under Section 489 B and C read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Crmc 365/08 2 to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner contending that there is no material to connect petitioner with the offences. It is contended that when the case was registered, though the petitioner was not an accused, police was harassing and so the petitioner filed a writ petition for proper investigation of the case and when the court directed proper investigation, petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any of the offences and hence the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Case diary made available by the learned Public Prosecutor was perused. Argument of the leaned counsel is that petitioner did not entrust the currency notes to the third accused with the knowledge or information that they are counterfeit currency notes and as they were soiled, it was entrusted to third accused to change them and petitioner was implicated only because he had approached this court for a proper investigation of the case. Learned counsel argued that there is no material to prove that petitioner dealt with the counterfeit currency notes with the knowledge that they are counterfeit notes Crmc 365/08 3 and the very case of prosecution cannot be believed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials produced before the learned Magistrate shows that petitioner has also committed the offence and whether that evidence could be accepted or not is to be decided only at the time of trial and cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find that it is for this court to appreciate the evidence at this stage and find whether petitioner has committed the offence or not. It cannot be said that there is no material whatsoever, produced against the petitioner. There are materials. Evidentiary value and veracity of the materials are to be tested only at the time of trial. In such circumstances, case cannot be quashed as sought for. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Magistrate at the time of trial. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.