IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 820 of 2002() ----------------------------- CRA.116/1997 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY SC.67/1995 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- PAKKANATH KARIM @ ABDUL KARIM @ SUPER KARIM, S/O.ABBAS, AGRICULTURIST, PUTHIYA PUZHAKKARA IN KANNUR AMSOM. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DY. S.P. C.B.C.I.D (CFS), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. REJI JOSEPH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DS P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. NO.820 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in S.C.67/1995 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court at Payyannur. PW9, the Dy.S.P., Crime Branch, Kozhikode, [C.B.C.I.D.(C.F.S)] prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offences under Sections 489 B and 489 C of the Indian Penal Code. The Asst. Sessions Judge, after full-fledged trial, found the revision petitioner guilty. Consequently he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months for the offences under Sections 489 B and 489 C respectively with an order to run the sentences concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl. Appeal No.116/1997 before the Sessions Judge, who made over the appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated Crl.R.P.No.820/2002 -2- 22-04-2002, arrived at a finding that prosecution has not succeeded to establish the offence under Section 489 B. Therefore,conviction and sentence for offence under Section 489 B were set aside. On the same time, the Additional Sessions Judge concurred with the trial Judge in finding the revision petitioner guilty for offence under Section 489 C. Consequently the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 489 C were confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. When the revision petition came up for hearing, Adv. Sri. Grashious Kuriakose, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is not assailing the conviction and confining the revision petition as against sentence alone. The learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner is a coolie with no permanent Crl.R.P.No.820/2002 -3- source of income and he was in the practice of purchasing foreign currencies from those who are returning from abroad and selling for petty commission and the fake currencies (Mos 1 and 2) happened to be in his hands by misfortune and that the crime was detected on 04/10/1987 and that the petitioner was no way involved with any such transaction for the last 24 years. It was also submitted that the revision petitioner had been suffering from paralysis and is not in a position to do any physical work and was depending upon his wife for his bread. With these pleadings, the learned counsel sought for leniency in sentence. The learned Government Pleader was asked to obtain a report from the charge officer. Accordingly a report dated 22/11/1988 was obtained and made available for perusal. The report would contain the certificate of the village officer Ramanthali Kannur 1 and Kannur 2, Kuttoor 2 and Panniyoor. It is reported that soon after the crime, the mother of the petitioner had disposed of her property and shifted Crl.R.P.No.820/2002 -4- residence to Thaliparamba and that the petitioner had some employment in a hotel abroad and he was thrown out due to health problem and now undergoing treatment for paralysis on the right side and he cannot even speak properly. He is not in a position to do any physical work. He has got wife and 4 children and is entirely depending on his wife who is doing coolie work. Report of the detecting inspector (C.B.C.I.D) would show that the petitioner has not earned anything out of order and at present he is physically disabled. 4. The prosecution case is that at 6.45 PM on 04/10/1987, PW6 Circle Inspector of Police, Payyannur detected out 3x100 U.S. Dollars. There is no case that for the last 24 years the petitioner has any way involved with any such crime. Petitioners has no earnings indicating that he is indulged in fake currency transaction. In the above circumstances, I find merit in the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is Crl.R.P.No.820/2002 -5- revealed by the judgment impugned that from 04/10/1987 to 05/11/1987 he was in judicial custody. In the above circumstances, I find that the sentence impugned requires modification and that in the peculiar circumstance of the case, the under trial imprisonment which revision petitioner had undergone would meet the ends of justice. In the result, revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone. In all other respects, the judgment impugned is confirmed. The bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. ds