IT THE HIBI I COB PT oF PAl ATAI<A CI RB B IT B ETC 11 AT DID A LW BID BEFOR B THE IF FcELE \iR. JLTiE V. ;AOAcATHA:\ CRIMIT-\L APPEAL TO1O: 2PU SRI. A\IBA\TA S (JS:W\CAPPA YIETC C ID. ACBI3 ABULJ YEARS.. DCC.: ADRICELTERE, R/()YAKKUNDI, TQ. :SAUN.DATTI, DISTRIC.TF I3ELGAUM. THE O.BCATE OF KA.RNATAR.A Ii ! 1 DC P() ‘‘( U [II(FI ()1jNI IIL[)IO. T H I S A P P.EA L I S Fi.E ID L/ S 374(1) C FUI C BY T.H B SI 52• I .1.) 5 1 5 1) 2 1 S.C. LI 1$ Y H I .1 C 1 PPELLA.NT/ ACCUSED NO I FOR THE O.FFENCE P, U / S fh9B C C OF IPC A SEN1ENCINC HIM PU UUDERC]O SI fT)R 3 Y EARS AND TO PA.Y A .FI NE (.)F PS I QQQ,/ ID.., TO NOURGO H OR 3 MON Ps fOR PHL OFFENCE I .LRC.B OF [PC AND FURTI [ER SENTENCING HIM TO L \DERGt) :S[ F’( YLj\ FOR OiL (.)f FENCE U :5 C Fr tT[1I I\ H N HELLH U1DLRCLi Hi \I I >1 H H IE { Us P\ JIX I f N I I NC P I \I P )LD ( \‘ I CEinL 2 D N(.P I SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THIS APPEAL COMINO ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE. COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The a ppclla at beihre Ui w Court aionp with wnsu sed nris coiir icwcl Lv hr Trini Conrt P r the fLues and three ve..us simple Imprisonment \V P fine of Ps. 1 ,000/ in respect. of the offence under Section 489B of 2. The prosecution case in short is that, one Ramesh Naduvinmani working as the Manager in a wine shop lodged the complaint with the police stating that on 07.07. 1995 accused No. 1 came to the vine shop known as Renuka Bar and ordered for one quarter of Hayward whisky and gave Rs. 100/- note and it was Ibund to be a fake note and then the complainant took accused No.1 to the Saundatti Police Station and gave oral complaint and it was reduced to writing as per Ex.P-2. The investigation was taken up and the investigating officers secured the panchas and recovered Irom accused No. 1 two notes of Rs.50/ - clenorninat ion and on completion of the investigation chargeshect was submitted against these two accused persons. After the trial, following the accused not pleading guilty of offenees, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. out of whom P.W.4 vas the complainant and 19 documents were marked apart from 20 M.C)s. 4 3. After recording the accused statement and the accused not adducing any defence evidence, learned Trial Judge after the appreciation of evidence convicted both the accused as mentioned above and they were sentenced accordingly. 4. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him. the appellant who is accused NC). I contends through his learned counsel that the judgment of the Court below cannot be sustained in law. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant, Sri Jagadish Patil is that the complainant himself has turned hostile and the two panchas were found dead, and therefore, there was no evidence of the police officials. The Trial Court did not have convicted the appellant because thcrc is no evidence indicating that the accused had the knowledge to believe that they were using counterfeit notes as genuine notes. Moreover, no question was put to the appellant in 313 statement with regard to the appellants knowledge either to believe that he vtts in -I possession of counterfeit notes knowing them to be fake notes and had intended to usc them as genuine notes. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2001 rLL.J. 4696 and that the Calcutta High Court reported in 2007 CrLL.J 4577. learned counsel argued that no specific question was put to the appellant with regard to he having the knowledge of the notes in his possession being counterfeit notes. no conviction can lie against the appellant either under Section 489B or 489C of I.P.C. Therefore, the appeal be allowed by acquitting the appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader argued ilTat the judgment of the Court below calls for no interference because even though the panchas were found dead there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officers and as many as 557 fake notes were recovered from the accused No.2 and though P.W.4 the 6 nps nthadtrnedl stict’it i ni ii itic ;i a t 1 F It thc h,zht of tbc aforc s ud c ontc ntiot s put f ra it 1, thc point that irises for ‘v eonsident on is Whcthcr thc cmicnor cfthc appcllant nbc suitarned in On p1w rcidng oi c tion 48)A ad C PC uiould go to shov. that the pcrson h sells bu)s r r ci cs i ‘ncr r, an curicr&i tc ist ha tie nc;dp )rl’esont x dr r f e u.n ircpc ctcr4 Kt s q 1 S (malwakr Stat 7(‘hattnqa It 200 without the meits reci being made out, no offence under Section 489B of I.P.C. ran be said to have been made out. S. In oilier words, the Apex Court tvent on to observe that when no specific question was put to the accused with regard to the currency notes being fake notes, the offences under Sections 489B & C cannot be said to have been proved, it is the case ol’ Roney Dubey v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2007 CrLL.J. 4577, it has been held by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that while nothing is there to show that Lhc accused had tlw requisite knowledge that notes Ibund from his possession were fake notes nor anything is there to show that he intended to use them, conviction under Section 489C will not be proper. 9. If the aforesaid decisions are applied to the case on hand, so far as using the fake notes as genuine notes by this appellant is concerned, the important witness for the prosecution is the eomplainani. P.W.4 Ramesh and he has I [pr t 8 s A! i • tic ( It( itt tia tsd,tenc t i al n 1k zyptlbnt th t lit lit c l.a tic u it its ( t c l-’tt ( I 1• Icti fik o, ft iit t fl)I ic F ;fto th in 1 17• I C IC) Ic Ic I C 1: 1 Icc ac ccz br I Is C F Ut’, log e LifT iwqr up t’ r ii’ SI P’ P;1 ‘U ) pt1PI T puoci pvq qj )fl1P4’ 43144 t •.Y S) UIJTJ • 1 L4 (I. pdltn q. )Cf’ %‘ ‘1 )_1j ( )(i T( I g)11JC )4 LUS’ — •4 1i