THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1352 OF 2004 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – cum – VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad in S.C.No.11 of 2004 on 02.07.2004. The appellant herein is the accused No.1 in the above said case and he was prosecuted along with 3 others for the offence under Sections 489-A, B, C, D, IPC alleging that on 5.10.2002 P.W.1 on receipt of information about the transaction of fake currency notes proceeded to Tadbund Bus stop along with P.C.No.7984 and apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 and found fake currency notes in the possession of accused No.1 and secured the presence of mediators P.Ws.2 and 3, and in their presence seized Rs.49,420/- fake currency notes under the cover of confession-cum-seizure Panchanama. In pursuance of the confession of the accused No.1, accused No.3 was taken into custody at Anjaiahnagar, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District and seized the instruments used for counterfeit currency notes i.e. Central processing unit, Monitor, Colour printer, Key board, 3 floppies, 22 sheets of counterfeit currency printed one side of Rs.500/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- and a white paper bundle from the possession of accused No.3 under the cover of confessional-cum-seizure Panchanama in the presence of above panch witnesses. He produced all the accused before P.W.5, who registered the case in Crime No.300 of 2002 and took up investigation. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were remanded to judicial custody. Later, on apprehension of accused No.4 on 10.10.2002 and on interrogation, he confessed about the offence of printing of fake currency notes at Anjaiahnagar with the help of accused No.3 and he has given the fake currency notes worth Rs.49,420/- to accused No.1, who is his relative, for circulation with the help of accused No.2. The seized fake currency notes were sent to F.S.L, Hyderabad for examination. P.W.4, who examined the fake currency notes, gave report that the currency notes sent to him are counterfeit currency notes. After completion of the investigation, P.W.5 filed the charge sheet against all the accused. The case against accused No.3 was split up and trial was conducted against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Sections 489-A and 489-D read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and under Sections 489-B and 489-C read with 34 IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2 and all the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.26 and M.Os.1 to 11. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found the accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 489-C IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were found not guilty for the offence under Sections 489-A, 489-B, and 489-D read with 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused No.1, who is the appellant herein, has filed the present appeal. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offence under Section 489-C IPC against the accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: The case of the prosecution is that on 05.10.2002 P.W.1 received credible information with regard to transaction of fake currency notes at Tadbund bus stop and proceeded there and apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2. As per the confession of accused No.1, he recovered the fake currency notes M.Os.1 to 4 from his possession in the presence of mediators P.Ws.2 and 3. The mediators P.Ws.2 and 3 have turned hostile to the prosecution. According to them, their signatures were obtained in the Bowenpally police station. Therefore, with regard to seizure of M.Os.1 to 4 from the possession of accused No.1, the only evidence available on record is the evidence of P.W.1. According to P.W.1 on 05.10.2002 at about 11.15 A.M. on credible information, he along with P.C.No.7984 went to Tadbund bus stop and found 2 persons standing at the bus stop. On enquiry they disclosed their names. They are accused Nos.1 and 2 and on enquiry accused No.1 disclosed that he was waiting for a person to exchange counterfeit currency with genuine currency. P.W.1 required his constable to secure 2 mediators. He secured the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The said accused No.1 was carrying a bag, after arrival of mediators, he opened the bag available with accused No.1 and found 76 fake currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination, 76 fake currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination, 76 fake currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination and one fake currency note of Rs.20/- denomination. Accused No.1 confessed that his uncle Bhaskar Reddy (accused No.4) asked him to join in printing and exchanging fake currency notes and he contacted accused No.2 to secure a person for circulating the fake currency and accused No.2 promised him to show the party, who can purchase the fake currency. Then he went to accused No.4 and got fake currency for Rs.49,420/- and came to Tadbund bus stop along with accused No.2 and waiting for a party. Ex.P.1 is the confessional statement-cum- seizure report to the extent of admissible portion in the said statement. According to P.W.1, as per the confession of accused No.1, he also apprehended accused No.3 and seized the material from his possession and produced them before P.W.5. Ex.P.3 is the written complaint given by him to the Inspector of Police. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the Tadbund bus stop is a busy locality and he did not mention in Ex.P.3 that the informant intimated him about the descriptive particulars of accused Nos.1 and 2 before he proceeded to Tadbund bus stop. Both the mediators secured by the constable are residents of Anjaiahnagar. The bag containing M.Os.1 to 4 fake currency was only a polythin cover and therefore, he did not seize the said polythin cover. He admitted that the numbers of fake currency were not mentioned in Ex.P.1 or Ex.P.3. P.W.5 Investigating Officer has supported the version of P.W.1 with regard to his lodging complaint Ex.P.3 and producing accused Nos.1 to 3 before him and he sent the counterfeit currency to the FSL for comparison and opinion through A.C.P and after receipt of the report, he has filed the charge sheet. P.W.4 is the Assistant Director of F.S.L, Hyderabad has opined that the M.Os.1 to 4 are counterfeit currency notes. As per the admissible portion in Ex.P.1 i.e. confessional- cum-seizure report, accused No.1 has stated that the police caught hold of him and he has produced the counterfeit currency notes, which were kept in the polythin cover. Thus, the said fake currency notes were handed over by accused No.1 in pursuance of his confession, but the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the M.Os.1 to 4 were not recovered in pursuance of confession of accused No.1. Moreover, even as per Ex.P.3 the fake currency notes were seized from the possession of accused No.1 under the cover of confessional- cum-seizure Panchanama. Thus, as observed above that the confessional Panchanama clearly discloses that accused No.1 in pursuance of his confession handed over the cover containing fake currency notes to P.W.1. According to P.W.1, after apprehending accused Nos.1 and 2, on enquiry, accused No.1 disclosed that he was waiting for a person to exchange counterfeit currency with genuine currency. Therefore, that part of the evidence amounts to confession made by accused No.1 before the police officer, but as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the confession made before the police officer is not admissible in evidence. No separate seizure report was drafted by P.W.1 with regard to seizure of M.Os.1 to 4 from the possession of accused No.1. Moreover, the mediators, who are P.Ws.2 and 3, have turned hostile to the prosecution. As admitted by P.W.1 the descriptive particulars of accused Nos.1 and 2 were not furnished by the informant to him and Tadbund bus stop is a busy locality and he could not able to say how he identified accused Nos.1 and 2 at the bus stop. Therefore, in the above circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of P.W.1, who is the police officer, without any corroborating evidence. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in recording the finding of guilt against accused No.1 basing on the sole testimony of P.W.1. Thus, the prosecution could not establish the recovery of M.Os.1 to 4 from the possession of accused No.1, even though it is established by the prosecution that M.Os.1 to 4 are counterfeit currency notes. Hence, the appellant/accused No.1 is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – cum – VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad in S.C.No.11 of 2004 on 02.07.2004 is hereby set aside and the accused No.1 is accordingly acquitted for the offence under Section 489-C IPC. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 21st October, 2011 Ksp