Tittu Abraham and Santhosh S/o Manual v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, CID, Kozhikode (CRL.A.No.2435 of 2006)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID** **TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **CRL.A.No.2435 of 2006** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 101/2004 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-I, KALPETTA DATED 23.11.2006** ## **APPELLANTS/ACCUSED :** **1 TITTU ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, THEVADIYIL HOUSE, MYLELLAMPARA, PUTHUPPADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2 SANTHOSH S/O. MANUAL, AYATHUPADATH HOUSE, MYLELLAMPARA, PUTHUPPADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :** **DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, CID, KOZHIKODE, (CR.NO.234/01 OF MEPPADI POLICE STATION), REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI SANTHOSH PETER-PP** **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CRL.A.No.2435 of 2006** 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants herein challenge the conviction and sentence against them under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code in SC 101/2004 of the Court of Session, Wayanad. They faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kalpetta, on the allegation that at about 1.30 a.m on 30.12.2001 at Muppainadu, they were found jointly possessing a huge quantity of 497 counterfeit notes of Rupees 100 denomination. The offence was detected by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalpetta during his usual night patrol. He happened to see the two accused riding on the motorcycle No.KL-11K 1540. On suspicion, the Circle Inspector intercepted the vehicle and interrogated the two accused. The 1[st] accused was the rider of the motorcycle, and the 2[nd] accused was the pillion rider. When the Circle Inspector conducted a search of the body of the two accused, he found huge quantity of counterfeit notes concealed by them. On body search, the Circle Inspector seized 281 counterfeit currency of 100/- from the possession of₹ the 1[st] accused, and 216 such counterfeit currency from the possession of the 2[nd] accused. The counterfeit currency notes were seized as per a mahazar, and the two accused were arrested on the spot. **CRL.A.No.2435 of 2006** 3 2. The two accused appeared before the learned trial Judge, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) IPC. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P10 documents in the trial court. The MO1 series to MO4 series properties were also identified during trial. The two accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence of total denial. They did not adduce any evidence in defence. 3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused not guilty under Section 489(B) I.P.C, but they were found guilty under Section 489(C) I.P.C. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each, and to pay a fine of 20,000/- each. Aggrieved by the₹ judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2006, the two accused have come up in appeal. 4. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no reason for interference in the findings or the conviction made by the trial court against the two accused under Section 489(C) I.P.C. Of the seven witnesses examined in the trial court, PW1 is the Circle Inspector who detected the offence, and PW2 is the Head Constable who assisted the Circle Inspector in the **CRL.A.No.2435 of 2006** 4 process of detection. Two independent witnesses examined as PW3 and PW4 turned hostile. The crime was registered by the Circle Inspector, and investigation was first taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kalpetta. He was examined as PW5. Later, investigation was taken over by the CBCID. The Investigating Officers were examined as PW6 and PW7. PW1 and PW2 have given definite and consistent evidence proving the seizure of huge quantity of counterfeit currency from the possession of the two accused. I find no reason to disbelieve PW1 or PW2, or to reject their evidence on facts. The two accused were intercepted by PW1 during his usual night patrol at Muppainadu at about 1.30 a.m on 30.12.2001, while they were riding on the motorcycle No.KL-11K 1540. The 1[st] accused was the rider, and the other was the pillion rider. Finding something suspicious, the Circle Inspector interrogated the two accused, and also conducted body search of the two accused. On body search, the Circle Inspector seized 281 counterfeit currency of 100/- from the possession of₹ the 1[st] accused, and another quantity of 216 such currency from the possession of the 2[nd] accused. The evidence given by the two witnesses on facts stands not discredited in cross-examination. The defence projected by the accused is that this is a false case **CRL.A.No.2435 of 2006** 5 foisted against them. It is really unacceptable that the Circle Inspector took much pain to procure huge quantity of counterfeit currency to register a false case against the two accused. It is not known why the Circle Inspector should foist such a false case against the two accused, or what is his enmity to foist such false case. I find no merit in the defence projected by the two accused. I find that the evidence given by PW1 and PW2 on facts is acceptable, and it is blemishless too. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ext.P10 report of examination of the counterfeit currency issued from the Government of India, Bank Note Press cannot be accepted, and it is not admissible under Section 292 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel cited a decision of this Court in **Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala [2014 KHC 773 = [2014 (4) KLJ 772].** The appellants have no case that the notes seized from their possession are genuine currency, or that they had no reason to believe that it was counterfeit currency. Ext.P10 report shows that all the 497 counterfeit currency were thoroughly examined at the Bank Note Press on all aspects, and on examination, the Scientist found that all the 497 notes are counterfeit currency notes. On examination regarding the size of the notes, and the size of the **CRL.A.No.2435 of 2006** 6 printed design, it was found approximately the same as that of genuine notes. On examination of the main water mark, the expert found imitation, and the other water marks were found absent. The security thread of every note was seen imitated. The paper thickness of every currency was found approximately the same as that of genuine notes. The texture of each note was found as that of genuine notes, and the numbers were found faulty. On a thorough examination of the 497 notes on all the relevant aspects, all the 497 notes were identified as counterfeit currency notes. On an examination of the evidence given by PW1 and PW7 in crossexamination, I find that the genuineness of the contents of the Ext.P10 report was not challenged by the defence. 6. Paragraph 23 of the judgment in Abdul Rahiman's case (cited supra) gives an indication as to in what circumstance the genuineness of the certificate issued from the Bank Note Press can be suspected, or in what circumstance examination of the concerned person is required to prove the document. Ext.P10 is a report sent from the Government of India Bank Note Press, and it contains the emblem of the Government of India. It is admissible under Section 292 Cr.P.C. without examining the expert who conducted test at the Press. I find no reason to reject Ext.P10 **CRL.A.No.2435 of 2006** 7 report, or not to accept it. I find that the prosecution case stands well proved by the Ext.P10 report also. 7. The learned counsel submitted that the Ext.P10 report does not specify whether the notes received there are bank notes or currency notes. Section 489A IPC contains an explanation as to what is meant by bank note. The evidence given by PW1 and PW2, or the detection mahazar prepared by the Circle Inspector does not give any sort of indication that the notes seized by PW1 were bank notes. PW1 and PW2 are definite that what PW1 seized is counterfeit currency. The two accused have no explanation for the possession of the huge quantity of counterfeit currency notes. I find that the two accused were rightly found guilty and convicted by the trial court under Section 489(C) IPC. 8. Now the question of sentence. The detection was made in December 2001. The two accused were aged 36 and 38 years respectively at the time of detection. No other crime of similar nature is seen reported against them, and there is also no previous conviction to their credit under Section 498(B) or 498(C) IPC. I find no reason for interference in the fine sentence imposed by the trial court. Anyway, on a consideration of the various aspects including the long lapse of years since the date of **CRL.A.No.2435 of 2006** 8 detection, and also the age of the accused, I find that rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years will be the adequate substantive sentence in this case. In the result, the conviction against the appellants under Section 489(C) IPC in S.C.No.101 of 2004 of the court below is confirmed, and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. However, the substantive sentence imposed by the trial court will stand modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years each. The fine sentence is maintained, but the default sentence will stand reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The appellants will surrender before the trial court within four weeks from this date to serve out the modified sentence, and to make payment of the fine amount voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the modified sentence, and realise the amount of fine, or enforce the default sentence. sd/- **P.UBAID JUDGE** ma/rkj