THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1011 OF 2004 DATED 13th DECEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : Saleem Baig ..Appellant-accused and The State of A.P. ..Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1011 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal arising out of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused in S.C.No.132 of 2001 by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, by judgment dated 14.05.2004 wherein the accused was convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offence under section 489 (c) of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that the accused was found in possession of 439 numbers of hundred rupee fake notes. Accused was arrested along with said money and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 489 (c) read with 420 IPC. To substantiate its case, Prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and MO.1. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the incriminating circumstances read over to him. He did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence on his behalf. After evaluating the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused as stated above. Heard. Among the prosecution witnesses, PWs 1 and 2 turned hostile. PWs 3, 4 and 5 are Head Constable, Inspector and Sub- Inspector of Police respectively. In their evidence, this Court is not able to see as to what type of investigation conducted by them. P.W.3 deposed that he arrested the accused. P.W.4 deposed that he send the accused for remand. P.W.5 simply deposed before the Court that the investigation conducted by P.W.4 is in accordance with law. Hence, he filed charge sheet. On perusal of the entire record, the Prosecution miserably failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate the charge against the accused for the offence under Section 489 (c) IPC that the notes recovered from the possession of the accused are counterfeit notes. No such report issued by any competent person was filed before the Court. In the absence of any such report, any conviction for the offence under Section 489 (c) IPC is not sustainable in law. Further, to attract an offence under Section 420 IPC also, absolutely there is no evidence adduced by the Prosecution. In the absence of any substantial acceptable evidence led by the Prosecution, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court in S.C.No.132 of 2001 on 14.05.2004 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 13.12.2010 sur