State of Kerala v Anwar @ Raveendran

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2023-10-25
Court Decision / Holding: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; the Sessions Court’s discharge order dated 20.09.2021 in CMP No.1071/2020 in SC No.128/2011 is affirmed; no interference with the discharge and the proceedings in SC No.128/2011.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed; discharge order maintained.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Kerala rep. by the Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Respondents

Anwar @ Raveendran

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Public Prosecutor

Counsels for Respondents

• Anwar @ Raveendran (Party-In-Person)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal revision petition filed by the State of Kerala challenging the discharge of the third accused (Anwar @ Raveendran) by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, in SC No.128/2011 arising from a case registered under sections 489B and 489C IPC read with section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that counterfeit currency notes were found in Coronation Lodge room 303, with one ₹500 note found in a book bearing the respondent’s name. The Magistrate split the case against the second accused and refiled it as CP 34/2005; later, the second accused’s case was committed to the Sessions Court and merged with SC No.724/2005. The 1st and 2nd accused were convicted under section 489C IPC and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment by judgment dated 04.08.2008. In 2021, the respondent (3rd accused) sought discharge under section 227 Cr.P.C., and the Sessions Court discharged him, holding that a note in a book insufficient to prove possession and that the book was not proved to be in the respondent’s possession, citing State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh. The State pressed revision, arguing nonproduction of seizure mahazar cannot justify discharge and that the room and possession were inadequately established. The High Court held no illegality in the Sessions Court’s order and dismissed the revision petition. It emphasized lack of direct seizure/guest register proof and that mere name in a book is insufficient for possession.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 489B IPCSection 489C IPCSection 34 IPCSection 227 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the Sessions Court erred in discharging the respondent under section 227 Cr.P.C. on the sole ground that a counterfeit note was found in a book bearing the respondent’s name. It argues that nonproduction of a seizure mahazar cannot justify discharge and that the circumstantial circumstances—room occupancy and seizure of counterfeit currency in a lodge room—create a prima facie case. The Sessions Court’s reliance on the absence of direct possession from the complainant record is misplaced; the prosecution should be allowed to establish possession through the surrounding circumstances and documentary evidence. The revision should therefore be allowed, and the discharge reversed or the matter sent for trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that no counterfeit currency notes were found in his possession; the mere fact that one note was found in a book with his name cannot establish possession. There is no seizure mahazar or guest register produced; the room was not proven to be in his exclusive possession; thus there is no prima facie case against him. The revision petition is an attempt to harass him. Responsibility lies on the prosecution to prove possession beyond doubt, which it has not.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh	(1997) 4 SCC 39	Mentioned Only	Cited by the Sessions Court to support discharge on the presumption that possession cannot be presumed from mere presence; High Court, however, did not adopt this line of reasoning and did not treat it as controlling in the present factual matrix.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023/3RD KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 207 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC.128/2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT-IV, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** **THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.\, PIN – 682031** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **RESPONDENT:** **ANWAR @ RAVEENDRAN AGED 50 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN VAIDHYAR, KOMATH HOUSE, CHALIKKARA PERAMBRA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673525** **BY ANWAR @ RAVEENDRAN (Party-In-Person)** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.R.P. No.207/2023 : 2 : ## **N. NAGARESH, J.** ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ## Crl.R.P. No.207 of 2023 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` _Dated this the 25[th] day of October, 2023_ ## **O R D E R** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The State has filed this Criminal Revision Petition against the order dated 20.09.2021 in CMP No.1071/2020 in SC No.128/2011 of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. 2. The Crime was investigated for offences under Sections 489B and 489C read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that on 27.02.1999, at about 6 am, the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused and the respondent herein, who is the 3[rd] accused, were found inside room No.303 of Coronation Lodge and on search, 11 counterfeit currency notes of ₹500/denomination and 21 currency notes of ₹100/- denomination were found in the possession of the 1[st] accused and 14 counterfeit currency notes of ₹500/- denomination and 11 Crl.R.P. No.207/2023 : 3 : currency notes of ₹100/- denomination were found in the possession of the 2[nd] accused. One counterfeit note of ₹500/- denomination was found kept in a book in which the name of the 3[rd] accused was written. When cognizance of the offence was taken, the 2[nd] accused and the respondent were absconding. The Magistrate's Court split up the case against the 2[nd] accused and the respondent, and refiled the same as CP No.34/2005. 3. Later, when the 2[nd] accused was produced, the Magistrate committed the case against him also to the Court of Session. The said cases were amalgamated with SC No.724/2005. Accused 1 and 2 were found guilty for the offence under Section 489C IPC and were convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years as per judgment dated 04.08.2008. 4. Later, the respondent in this Crl.R.P. (3[rd] accused) was arrested in the year 2011 and the case was committed to Sessions Court and numbered as SC No.128/2011. The respondent filed an application for discharge under Section Crl.R.P. No.207/2023 : 4 : 227 Cr.P.C. 5. The Sessions Court noted that though the SI searched the body of the respondent herein, nothing was seized from him. However, the respondent was implicated on the ground that one counterfeit currency note of ₹500/denomination was found kept in a book lying in the cot in the room in which name of the respondent is written. The Sessions Court took a view that solely on the reason that he name of the accused was found written in the book, it cannot be said that the book was in his actual possession. Relying on the judgment in _**State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh** [(1997) 4 SCC 39]_ , the Sessions Court held that it is impossible to frame a charge against the respondent upon consideration of the records of the case. Consequently, the discharge petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the respondent was discharged from the offence alleged against him under Section 489C IPC. 6. The Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court erred in finding that the book in which one counterfeit Crl.R.P. No.207/2023 : 5 : currency note was alleged to have been seen was not produced before the court by the prosecution. Nonproduction of a material object or a document cannot form the basis for discharging an accused. The respondent was present in the room along with accused 1 and 2, from where counterfeit notes were seized. The room in which the accused were found was also taken in the name of the respondent. Therefore, the order dated 20.09.2021 of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode is liable to be set aside. 7. The respondent appeared in person and resisted the revision petition. The respondent submitted that while counterfeit currencies were in the possession of accused 1 and 2, no such currency was found in the possession of the respondent. The mere fact that one such currency note was found in a book in which the name of the petitioner was written cannot be a reason to assume that the said currency was possessed by the petitioner. 8. The respondent pointed out that there is no scene mahazar in respect of the seizure. The Guest Register Crl.R.P. No.207/2023 : 6 : maintained by the Lodge is also not seized. The respondent had filed a civil suit for compensation against officers and the revision petition has been filed only to take revenge on the respondent. 9. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor representing the petitioner and the respondent in person. 10. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with two others were found in room No.303 of Coronation Lodge and on search, a counterfeit currency note of ₹500/- denomination was found kept in a book in which the name of the respondent was written. It is an admitted fact that no counterfeit currency was found from the body of the respondent. The court below rightly found that merely because a counterfeit currency note was found kept in a book in which the name of the respondent was written, it cannot be held that he is in possession of the currency. I do not find any illegality in the conclusion of the Sessions Court. 11. The argument of the Public Prosecutor is that the currency was found from a room of Coronation Lodge which Crl.R.P. No.207/2023 : 7 : was taken in the name of the respondent. As the room was given to the respondent and the counterfeit currency was found from the room, it should be presumed that the currency was in possession of the respondent. 12. It is to be noted that there is no seizure mahazar and the prosecution has not produced the relevant Guest Register of the Coronation Lodge in order to establish a _prima facie_ case that the counterfeit currency was found in a room which was in the possession of the respondent. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 20.09.2021 of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode discharging the respondent. The Criminal Revision Petition therefore fails and it is consequently dismissed. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/19.10.2023 Crl.R.P. No.207/2023 : 8 : ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 207/2023** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES** |**Annexure R1(a)**|**The true copy of order dated**| |---|---| ||**20.09.2021 in CMP No 1071/2020 in S.C**| ||**No.128/2011by the additional sessions**| ||**court IV , Kozhikode**| |**Annexure R1(f)**|**The true copy of the seizure mahazar**| ||**dated 27.02.1999**| |**Annexure R1(g)**|**Ture copy of the extract of the final**| ||**report(Page 1and 2) in crime no**| ||**39/1999 by the town police station**| ||**,Kozhikode dated 27.02.1999**| |**Annexure R1(b)**|**The true copy of the arrest memo of**| ||**the accused No.1 Mr.Shivadasan dated**| ||**27.2.1999**| |**Annexure R1(c)**|**The true copy of the arrest memo of**| ||**the accused No.2 Mr.Sunil Babu dated**| ||**27.2.1999**| |**Annexure R1(d)**|**The true copy of the arrest memo filed**| ||**by respondent dated 27.2.1999**| |**Annexure R1(e)**|**The true copy of the FIR in crime No**| ||**39/1999 of town police station**| ||**kozhikode dated 27.2.1999**| |**Annexure R1(h)**|**The true copy of the search list dated**| ||**22.07.1992**| |**Annexure R1(i)**|**The true copy of the search list dated**| ||**27.02.1999**|