IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2158 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/06/2009 IN CRMP 1362 2009 IN SC.985/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - accused: ---------------------------------------------- 1. A.M. MOHAMMED HARIS, AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF MOHAMMED HAJI, PALLAM, KASARGOD. 2. C.A. ANWAR, AGED 23 YEARS, SON OF MEHAMOOD, BANGARAKUNNU, KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S) – respondent - complainant: --------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR shri p.r. jayakrishnan THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2158 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Station House Officer of Kasargod submitted final report against four (4) accused persons alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 489C read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (foro short, “the IPC”). Case is that the said accused persons were possessing counterfeit currency notes knowing or having reason to believe the same to be counterfeit notes intending to use the same as genuine. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in the case. Case was taken on file by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kasargod in S.C. No.985 of 2004. Petitioners filed C.M.P. No.1362 of 2009 under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that they may be discharged since according to them there is no sufficient ground to proceed against them. Learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to discharge them and dismissed the petition. Hence this revision. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that there is no material before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hold that there is sufficient ground to proceed against petitioners. I heard CRL. R.P. No.2158 of 2009 -: 2 :- learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted and it is also revealed from my going through the case diary that according to C.Ws.1 to 10 of whom C.Ws.1 to 8 are police officials on the police party including the Detective Inspector who got previous information about the reaching near the mosque on the relevant day and time the accused including petitioners were seen near the mosque. Of them, petitioners and another ran away. Accused No.1 was apprehended and counterfeit currency notes were seized from him. When questioned, accused No.1 told the Detective Inspector that the counterfeit currency notes were printed by the accused persons at the residence of petitioner No.1 and that all of them were waiting to go to Kannur for sale of the counterfeit currency notes. C.Ws.11 to 13 are cited to say that on seeing police party petitioners and another ran away from the scene and accused No.1 was apprehended. Concededly search conducted in the house of petitioner No.1 did not yield any result. The only material that prosecution relies on against petitioners is the alleged statement of accused No.1 as to the alleged involvement of petitioners and petitioners allegedly running away on seeing the police party. That statement of accused No.1 cannot be admitted in CRL. R.P. No.2158 of 2009 -: 3 :- evidence nor can be relied on by the prosecution. The mere fact that petitioners and accused No.1 were found together is not sufficient to cast any suspicion much less any strong suspicion against petitioners. Therefore the above circumstances cannot be a material based on which it can be said that there is sufficient ground to proceed against petitioners. On hearing counsel for petitioners and Public Prosecutor and on going through the case diary I am satisfied that there is no sufficient material placed before court from which it could be said that there is sufficient ground to proceed against petitioners for offence punishable under Sec.489C of the IPC. As such petitioners are entitled to a discharge. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1362 of 2009 will stand allowed. Petitioners will stand discharged of the charge against them. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv