IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.841 OF 2004 Between: Karam Arun Kumar ..... Appellant/Accused No.2 AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/Complainant AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.843 OF 2004 Between: Pokanti Nageswara Rao ..... Appellant/Accused No.1 AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent The Court made the following: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.841 OF 2004 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.843 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeals, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), are filed against the judgment, dated 31.03.2004, in Sessions Case No.56 of 2003, on the file of the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences- cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.843 of 2004 is A.1 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.841 of 2004 is A.3, in the Sessions Case. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for the disposal of the present Criminal Appeals, may be stated as follows: The Accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 belong to Jangareddygudem of West Godavari District and they have involved in preparing the counterfeit currency notes by using computer scanners and they used to circulate through the agents at the ratio of 100:40 of counterfeit currency notes to that of original notes. The Accused No.2 resides in Kukatpalli area in Hyderabad. On 13.4.2002, the Accused Nos.1 and 3 came to Hyderabad from Jangareddygudem along with counterfeit currency notes to exchange them through the Accused No.2 and the Accused No.3 introduced the Accused No.2 to Accused No.1, and on 14.04.2002, the Accused No.3 contacted the Accused No.2 and directed him to come to Dharul Shifa, Hyderabad, along with Accused No.1 between 12.00 and 12.30 noon representing them that he would arrange a suitable party for exchange of counterfeit currency notes and accordingly, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 alleged to have carried counterfeit currency notes of Rs.50,000/- in which Rs.27,000/- consisted of Rs.100/- denomination and Rs.20,000/- consisted of Rs.50/- denomination and accordingly, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were waiting for Accused No.3 and the intended party. Meanwhile, on 14.04.2002, while P.W.1, who was working as the Sub-Inspector of Police, South Zone Task Force, was at the Task Force Office, Purana Haviely, received reliable information at 11.00 a.m. that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were involved in exchange of counterfeit currency notes at Dharul Shifa, near Jambagh bus stop, Hyderabad, between 12.00 and 12.30 noon. Then, P.W.1 summoned P.W.3 and one Mohd. Taufiq, who are Mediators, and prepared search proceedings under Section 165 Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P1, dated 14.04.2002. Then, P.W.1, along with P.W.2 and other staff, who formed as the Task Force Party, proceeded to that place and apprehended Accused Nos.1 and 2. When interrogated, both Accused Nos.1 and 2 alleged to have confessed the commission of offence herein, and in the search conducted, the Task Force Party seized the counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination 270 in number, and Rs.50/- denomination 460 in number, in total Rs.50,000/-, from the possession of Accused No.1, and 5 Nos. of Rs.100/- denomination notes and 10 Nos. of Rs.50/- denomination notes from the possession of Accused No.2 in the presence of both the Mediators under Exs.P2 and P3-Confessional Seizure Panchanama, dated 14.04.2002, and then, took Accused Nos.1 and 2 along with the property to the Station House Officer, Mir Chowk Police Station and produced them by handing over the property along with a report, which is marked as Ex.P4, dated 14.04.2002. Basing on Ex.P4-report, the Station House Officer, Mir Chowk Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 489B and C, 420 and 120B I.P.C. and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the statements of all the relevant Task Force Police officials were recorded and the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and were sent for judicial remand on 14.04.2002. After obtaining the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, which is marked as Ex.P11, which indicated that the currency notes seized from the possession of Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein were counterfeit notes and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid on 27.07.2002 against the accused alleging the aforesaid offences. 3. The learned Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, framed the following charges against the accused: “FIRSTLY: That on 14.04.2002, at about 12.15 hours the South Zone Task Force on credible information with regard to exchange counterfeit currency notes at Darulshifa near Jambagh Bus stop apprehended you A.1 and A.2 and as such you A.1 were found in possession of counterfeit currency notes 270 numbers of Rs.100/- denomination notes 460 numbers of Rs.50/- denomination notes total value of Rs.5000/- and in respect of you A.2, you were found in possession of counterfeit currency notes 5 numbers of 100/- denomination notes and 10 numbers of Rs.50/- denomination notes and the same were seized under cover of a panchanama and you A.4 and A.5 are used to manufacture counterfeit currency notes at P.W.D. quarters, Jangareddygudem with the help of Computer Scanner and you A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.5 exchanged the currency notes in the ration 100:40 i.e. counterfeit original currency and therefore you A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.5 using of having reason to believe the same to be forged of counterfeit and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.489-B of IPC and within my cognizance. SECONDLY: That the date, place, and time mentioned in Charge No.1, you A.1, A.2 were found in possession of counterfeit currency, the details of the denomination as mentioned in Charge No.1 and you A.4 & A.5 are used to manufacture counterfeit currency notes at the place mentioned in charge No.1 with the help of computer scanner and used the same as genuine knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and thereby you A.1, A.2, A.4, & A.5 have also committed an offence punishable under Sec.489-C of IPC and within my cognizance. THIRDLY: That you A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.5 and others were conspired together involved in the counterfeit currency as detained in charge No.1 and thereby you A.1, A.2, A.4 & A.5 have also committed an offence punishable under Sec.120-B of IPC and within my cognizance. FOURTHLY: That you A.1, A.2, A.4 & A.5 and others were conspired together and cheated the public by using that exchange counterfeit currency at the ratio of 100:40 i.e. counterfeit original currency, the details of which are mentioned in charge No.1 and thereby you A.1, A.2, A.4 & A.5 have also committed an offence punishable under Sec.420 IPC and within my cognizance.” When the above charges were read over and explained to the accused in Urdu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 5. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced. 6. The trial Court, having accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, found Accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 489C I.P.C. and accordingly there were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month each. All the accused were not found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 489B, 120B and 420 I.P.C. and A.4 and A.5 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498C I.P.C., and accordingly acquitted. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeals are filed by Accused Nos.1 and 2. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against Accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 489C I.P.C. and whether the judgment of the Trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Task Force Police, though empowered to register a case, they have not registered the case; that they in turn sent the Search Proceedings and the seizure property along Accused Nos.1 and 2 to Mir Chowk police; that there is no evidence to show that the property was kept in safe custody till they were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory; that as the case property was kept in the Mir Chowk Police Station for over more than one month and 10 days, there is every possibility for meddling with or tampering with the property; that the necessary ingredients under Section 489C IP.C. have not been established, even if the entire case of the prosecution is to be accepted; that these aspects have not been considered by the trial Court in a proper perspective, and hence, they pray to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and acquit the appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is very clear that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession of counterfeit currency notes; that considering the fact that Accused No.1 was found in the possession of huge chunk of tainted currency notes, it was inferred that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were intending the same to use in genuine; and that the trial Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly found Accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 489C I.P.C., the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients: 1. The person must be in the possession of the counterfeit currency notes; 2. He knows or has reason to believe that those notes to be not genuine; 3. The person intending to use the same as a genuine; or those notes may be used as a genuine knowing that they are counterfeit currency notes. 11. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the officials of the Task Force of Hyderabad city, would go to show that on prior information, they proceeded to the scene of occurrence and apprehended Accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized M.Os.1 and 2 from the possession of Accused No.1 and M.Os.4 and 5 from the possession of Accused No.2, under special proceedings recorded under Section 165 Cr.P.C., and handed over the same to P.W.5. Though it is contended that P.Ws.1 and 2 are empowered to register a case and investigate into the case, but no material is filed to show that the Task Force Police have been designated as a Police Station by the State Government to conduct investigation i.e., proceedings starting from Section 154 Cr.P.C. If really P.Ws.1 and 2 have the power to register a case and investigate into the case, there was no need for them to take Accused Nos.1 and 2 along with Exs.P1 and M.Os.1, 2, 4 and 5 to the Police Station and hand over the same to P.W.5, who ultimately registered the case. So the contention of learned counsel on this aspect, is devoid of merit. 12. The other contention is that the material objects were not properly sealed and they were not kept in the proper place in the Police Station. M.Os.1, 2, 4 and 5 were seized from the possession of Accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively on 14.04.2002. As seen from the evidence, the case properties M.Os.1, 2, 4 and 5 were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 28.05.2002. No explanation is forthcoming from P.W.4-Investigating Officer with regard to taking of safety measures to keep the case properties in a proper custody at proper place. But, at the same time, it is not the case of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 that while the counterfeit currency notes were in the custody of the Police Station, they were tampered or meddled with, or that the property that was seized from the possession of Accused Nos.1 and 2 is not the self-same property which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. All the counterfeit currency notes have been analysed and examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory and it was found that they are counterfeit currency notes. 13. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 would go to show that they received the case property from P.Ws.1 and 2 and they sent the case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, from the evidence of these witnesses, it can be said that the property that was seized from the possession of Accused Nos.1 and 2 on 14.04.2002 is the self-same property that was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 28.05.2002. Though there was a scope or possibility for P.Ws.4 and 5 to meddle or tamper with the property which was in the custody of the Police, there were no other circumstances to infer that the police officials tampered with the property. 14. P.W.3-Mediator, who was said to have been present at the time of seizure of the property M.Os.1 and 2 from Accused No.1 and M.Os.4 and 5 from Accused No.2, was declared hostile. Therefore, the only evidence available on record is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the Task Force officials. Simply because the Mediator for the seizure of the case property was declared hostile, that does not mean that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has to be disbelieved on that ground. Their evidence has to be appreciated like that of the evidence of any other witnesses. If there is any improbability or infirmity in their evidence, then only the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has to be rejected. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 are totally strangers to P.Ws.1 and 2. Had the property not been seized from the possession of Accused Nos.1 and 2, police would not have fabricated a false case of this nature against Accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging that they seized counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination 270 in number, and Rs.50/- denomination 460 in number, in total Rs.50,000/-, from the possession of Accused No.1, and 5 Nos. of Rs.100/- denomination notes and 10 Nos. of Rs.50/- denomination notes from the possession of Accused No.2. There was no animus for those two police officials to foist a false case of this nature against Accused Nos.1 and 2 saying that they seized M.Os.1 and 2 from Accused No.1 and M.Os.4 and 5 from Accused No.2. In the absence of any other evidence, it cannot be said that P.Ws.1 and 2 entertained a grouse against Accused Nos.1 and 2 so as to implicate them. There is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.ws.1 and 2. That is the reason why the trial Court has placed implicit reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2, and M.Os.4 and 5 from Accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. 15. It is also contended that the Search Proceedings have not been sent to the Court immediately after the search and seizure and therefore, the seizure has to be disbelieved. P.W.5 is the person who received Ex.P1, M.Os.1 and 2, M.Os.4 and 5 along with Accused Nos.1 and 2. He has to give an explanation as to why he did not send the Search Proceedings to the concerned Court immediately. As seen from Ex.P1, it was received by the concerned Court on the next day. Even assuming for a moment that search is conducted illegally or contrary to the provisions under Section 165 Cr.P.C. and sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C., still the seizure will not in any manner be affected. Therefore, the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt with regard to the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 from Accused No.1 and M.Os.4 and 5 from Accused No.2. Ex.P11 is the Forensic Science Laboratory Report which shows that the Analyst conducted analysis of the currency notes which were received by him in a sealed packet and gave opinion that they are counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, the first ingredient of Section 489C has been established. 16. The other ingredients are that Accused Nos.1 and 2 must have knowledge or have reason to believe that those notes are not genuine, and that they were intending to use the same as genuine. From the language used in Section 489C I.P.C., it is imperative that there must be intention on the part of the accused of using the counterfeit currency notes as genuine and the accused must be having a knowledge that they were in the possession of counterfeit currency notes. The intention or knowledge of a person is normally locked up in the mind of that person. It may not be known to the prosecution to establish that with what intention or with what knowledge the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in the possession of the counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, the law permits that it is a matter of inference which can be inferred from the circumstances of the prosecution case. Therefore, the acts and deeds of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the important aspects from which an inference of guilty has to be drawn with regard to their intention and knowledge about possession of the counterfeit currency notes. Except the seizure of the counterfeit currency notes from the possession of Accused Nos.1 and 2, there are absolutely no circumstances to infer that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were having a knowledge or reason to believe that they were found in the possession of counterfeit currency notes or that they were intending to use the same as a genuine or it may be used as a genuine. Such evidence is lacking. Except proving the fact that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in the possession of M.Os.1, 2, 4 and 5, there is absolutely no evidence to show with regard to the other ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 489C I.P.C. This aspect of the case has not at all been considered by the trial Court. In the absence of evidence, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 489C I.P.C. and are acquitted. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed by setting aside the judgment, dated 31.03.2004, in Sessions Case No.56 of 2003, on the file of the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The appellants/A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 489C I.P.C. and they are accordingly acquitted. The bail bonds of the appellants shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 18th January, 2010 KL