IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRL.A.No.941 of 2007(C) ----------------------------- SC.16/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CP.45/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... APPELLANT: ACCUSED -------------------------- MANOHARAN PILLAI, S/O.KESVAN PILLAI, C.NO.1271, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. ARUN. B. VARGHESE[STATE BRIEF] RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.941 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This is appeal filed from jail by Convict No.1271 Manoharan Pillai assailing the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikara convicting him for offence under Section 489(B) and (C) of the IPC. On conviction, he was sentenced by the court below to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further term of one year under Section 489(B) of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further term of one year under Section 489(C) of the IPC with benefit of concurrency and right of set off. Crl. Appeal No.941 of 2007 -2- 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant at about 5.30 a.m. On 19/07/01, was found in possession of 21 fake currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination knowing that they were fake notes and with the intention to circulate the same as genuine notes to make unlawful gain to him and with the said intention, he gave one such note to CW1 who is conducting tea shop on the south of Kannanakuzhi Sreekrishna Swami Temple in Kannanakuzhi muri towards price for the tea consumed from that shop making CW1 to believe that it is genuine note and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 489(B) and (C) of the IPC. 3. After investigation, the investigating officer filed Final Report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kayamkulam and after completing all legal formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Alappuzha division vide Crl. Appeal No.941 of 2007 -3- proceedings in C.P.45/05. In the Sessions Division, Alappuzha, the case was registered as S.C.16/06 and the Sessions Judge made over the case to the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikara for trial and disposal. 4. On production of the appellant who was in custody, in the court below Advocate Sri.S.Gopakumar was appointed as Legal Aid Counsel to defend the case on behalf of the appellant. Thereafter, preliminary arguments were heard by the court below; charge was framed against the appellant for offence under Section 489(B) and (C) of the IPC; was read over and explained to the appellant and he was questioned. Thereupon, he pleaded not guilty and consequently, a trial of the case was conducted by the court below. 5. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5, got marked Exts.P1 to P15 and got identified MO1 to MO1(t). On the prosecution closing their evidence, the appellant was questioned under Crl. Appeal No.941 of 2007 -4- Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereupon, he generally denied all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. According to the appellant, he was arrested on 17/07/01 and not on 19/07/01 as stated by the police; that he was being arrested from near his house; that he was having Rs.1,050/- in his purse being amount obtained by sale of a Perumaram tree from his property to meet the treatment expenses of his mother and that this case is falsely foisted by the police against him. According to him, he has not committed any offence and he is innocent of the charge and no fake notes were seized from his possession. However, he did not adduce any evidence in defence. The court below considered the case in the light of the evidence adduced as aforesaid; found that the appellant has committed offences punishable under Section 489(B) and (C) of the IPC; convicted him Crl. Appeal No.941 of 2007 -5- thereunder and sentenced him as already stated. Hence, this appeal by the aggrieved appellant. 6. It is contended before me by the learned counsel for the appellant who was appointed on State Brief that the conviction of the appellant by the court below is solely based on the testimony of police officials; that there is no convincing evidence that the seizure of counterfeit currency notes were being effected from the possession of the appellant and that therefore, the appellant should not have been convicted for offence under Section 489(B) and (C) of the IPC. 7. PW1 is a conductor in K.S.R.T.C. He has given evidence that he is one who invariably goes to the shop of CW1/Vasudevan Nair early in the morning on all days; that on 19/07/01 at about 5.30 p.m. while he was in the said tea shop CW1 called him in privacy and showed him a currency note of Rs.50/- Crl. Appeal No.941 of 2007 -6- denomination and told him that it is currency note given by the appellant; that he thereupon, received the said note and verified it and found that it is having difference from genuine currency note and expressed his opinion to CW1 to that effect; that the appellant was still remaining in the tea shop; that after some time, CW3/Purushothaman came over there and CW1 showed the said currency note to him also and that at that time the appellant attempted to leave from that place and they intercepted him and informed the matter at the Vallikkunnam Police Station and the Sub Inspector and party came over there and CW1 showed the said currency note to the Sub Inspector and thereafter the Sub Inspector questioned the appellant and conducted a search of the body of the appellant and thereupon twenty currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination and of the nature of the one which was already shown was recovered from his Crl. Appeal No.941 of 2007 -7- possession; that the Sub Inspector took all the said currency notes into banthavast preparing Ext.P1 mahazar in that behalf attested by CW3/Purushothaman and himself, and the police effected arrest of the appellant and took him along with the seized currency notes to the Police Station by about 6.00-6.30 a.m. PW1 has identified the appellant as the person who was thus, arrested by the police; and has identified Ext.P1 as the mahazar to which he was also an attestor whereunder MO1 series twenty one numbers of currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination were seized. In cross examination, he has stated that when he went over to the tea shop of CW1 only CW1 and the appellant were in that shop and CW1 was then taking him to the side room and showing him the currency note of Rs.50/- denomination and getting convinced that the currency note delivered over to CW1 by the appellant is not genuine currency note. He has no doubt stated Crl. Appeal No.941 of 2007 -8- that he has not seen the currency note being given to CW1 by the appellant, but he was presuming that it must be currency note delivered over to CW1 towards payment of price of tea; that the appellant might have been remaining there for the purpose of getting the balance and when he saw CW1 discussing matters with him and Purushothaman, the appellant tried to leave the place probably because he was convinced that the currency note was understood by CW1; by himself and Purushothaman as being fake currency note. He has however, testified that the appellant is one who is residing within one kilometre from his house and that he is well acquainted to him though he is not aware as to what is his employment. He has strongly denied the suggestion in cross examination that he was giving evidence supporting the prosecution case and acknowledging the signature of attestor in Ext.P1 as being his signature as desired by the police when Crl. Appeal No.941 of 2007 -9- actually he has not seen the occurrence. 8. It is worthy to note that PW1 is an independent witness. The appellant has no case that he is having any animosity towards him or that PW1 is having any axe to grind by implicating him in this grave crime. It is true that CW1/Vasudevan Nair who was running the said tea shop is the best person to give evidence implicating the appellant, but his non-examination cannot be made much of as by the time of trial of the case he was no more. 9. PW4 was the then Sub Inspector of Vallikkunnam Police Station who came over to the tea shop of CW1 and effected arrest of the appellant and seizure of the currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination delivered over by the appellant to CW1 as also twenty other currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination from the possession of the appellant. PW2 is the police constable who accompanied PW4. PW5 is the investigating officer in this case and PW3 is the successor Crl. Appeal No.941 of 2007 -10- in office of PW5 who has completed the investigation and has laid final report in the case. The testimonies of PWs.2 and 4 have convincingly corroborated the testimony of PW1 and it is not shown as to why they should implicate the appellant in this grave crime if at all it is that the fake currency notes were not being seized from his possession. Ext.P3 report of examination of MO1 series currency notes established beyond reasonable doubt that the currency notes seized from the possession of the appellant were fake currency notes. PWs.5 and 3 have given evidence regarding the details of the investigation conducted in the matter. There is absolutely nothing in evidence in the case to be urged as inconsistency so as to discredit the testimony of any of the prosecution witnesses or any circumstance which would suggest that the case was being foisted against the appellant either by the police or at the instigation of PW1 or Crl. Appeal No.941 of 2007 -11- CW1/Vasudevan Nair or CW3/Purushothaman. The conviction of the appellant, in the circumstances, by the court below for offence under Section 489(B) and (C) of the IPC finding him guilty of those offences is correct and has only to be confirmed. There is no merit at all in this Criminal Appeal and this Criminal Appeal deserves only to be dismissed. 10. In the result, I dismiss this Criminal Appeal. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the appellant through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-