Xavier Kennedy @ Joy v. State of Kerala

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.` ``` MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ## `CRL.A NO. 479 OF 2006` ``` [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2006 IN S.C.NO.1651/2003 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM] ``` ## `APPELLANT/ACCUSED:` **==> picture [78 x 69] intentionally omitted <==** ``` XAVIER KENNEDY @ JOY S/O.PETER, KOCHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV M.T.SURESHKUMAR ``` ## `RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:` **==> picture [78 x 69] intentionally omitted <==** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV RAJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2023, THE COURT ON 10.7.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ## `JUDGMENT` ``` The appellant is the 1[st]accused in ``` ``` S.C.No.1651/2003 on the file of the 1[st] ``` ``` Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. The aforesaid case arises from Crime No.254/2001 of Kottarakkara Police Station, which was ``` ``` later re-numbered as Crime No.102(CR)2001 C.B.C.I.D(CFS),Thiruvananthapuram.The offences alleged against the appellant, and the 2[nd]accused were under sections ``` ``` 120(B),489B, 489C r/w.Section 34 of the Indian ``` ``` Penal Code (IPC). ``` ``` 2.The prosecution case is as follows: ``` ``` The appellant conspired with the 2[nd] ``` ``` accused to traffick in counterfeit currency notes ``` ``` of denomination of Rs.100/- and on a ``` ``` day in a week prior to 23.3.2001, the 2[nd] ``` ``` accused procured some counterfeit currency ``` 3 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` notes of Rs.100/- denomination from a person from Tamilnadu while he was occupying room No.102 of Rohini hotel and restaurant, Kottarakkara. Thereafter he exchanged those currency notes worth Rs.20,000/- to the appellant herein for original currency notes of Rs.10,000/-, and the appellant used those currency notes for the transaction. The crime was detected in the following manner; On 23.3.2001, the appellant was found in ``` ``` possession of 62 counterfeit currency notes by ``` ``` the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara and his team while the appellant was standing in front of his meat stall near Puthoor junction. On further questioning, the appellant/1[st] accused informed that he obtained the said currency notes from the 2[nd] accused, who was residing in Rohini Hotel and Restaurant, Kottarakkara. Thereupon, an inspection was ``` 4 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` conducted in the hotel and from the possession ``` ``` of the 2[nd] accused, ten counterfeit currency notes of 100 denomination were recovered. Accused persons were arrested, and the ``` ``` counterfeit currency notes were seized after preparing mahazar in the presence of ``` ``` independent witnesses. ``` ``` 3.Thereafter, on 19.4.2001, CBCID took ``` ``` over the investigation. After completing the ``` ``` investigation, the final report was submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and the matter was later committed to the Sessions ``` ``` Court. The trial was conducted before the 1st ``` ``` Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, as ``` ``` S.C.No.1651/2003, in which the appellant alone ``` ``` participated, as the 2[nd] accused absconded. In ``` ``` support of the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 11 ``` ``` were examined, Exhibits P1 to P17 were marked, ``` ``` and material objects 1 to 4 were identified. ``` 5 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` After completing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 313 of Cr.PC, during the course of which, the ``` ``` incriminating materials brought out by the ``` ``` prosecution were put to him. He denied the same and stated that he was innocent of all the allegations and that he was falsely ``` ``` implicated. No defence evidence was adduced. ``` ``` 4.After appreciating the materials ``` ``` placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under sections 120B, 489B and 489C ``` ``` r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. ``` ``` Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with a default ``` ``` sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for ``` ``` one year under section 489B r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to ``` 6 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under section 489C r/w. 34 of IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under section 120B r/w. 34 of IPC. This Crl.Appeal is filed challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence. ``` ``` 5.Heard Sri.M.T.Sureshkumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Ranjit George, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State. ``` ``` 6.The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the allegations raised against him. It was pointed out that there was a clear discrepancy with respect to the place from which the arrest of the appellant and the recovery of the counterfeit notes were affected. It is pointed out that Exhibit P7(a) location sketch prepared by PW6 Village ``` 7 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` Officer, and the evidence adduced by PW9, the Detecting Officer were mutually contradictory. ``` ``` It was also pointed out that there was some delay in producing the counterfeit currency notes before the court. It was pointed out that, recovery was affected on 23.3.2001, whereas the said articles reached before the court on 7.4.2001, and no proper explanation ``` ``` is forthcoming for the delay. He further pointed out that it has come out in evidence that the Sub Inspector of Police (PW9) recorded the statements of the witnesses, and later the statements of the said witnesses were recorded by PW10 as per the instructions of PW1 after the investigation was taken over by the CBCID. However, the statements of the witnesses recorded by PW9 were not provided to the accused, and this caused prejudice to the appellant during the trial as the appellant ``` 8 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` lost the opportunity to use the said statements for contradictions. It was also pointed out that even if it is assumed that the articles were seized from the possession of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the possession of the said articles by the appellant was with the knowledge that the said currency notes were fake. It was also contended that the only evidence available against the appellant is the deposition of the official witnesses, as all the other witnesses who were examined to prove the recovery of the articles from the possession of the appellant have turned hostile to the prosecution. Besides the same, despite the fact that the specific case of the prosecution is that the appellant was a meat vendor and the recovery was affected while he was in the shop, the prosecution miserably failed to produce any ``` 9 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` document showing the ownership or possession of the appellant over the said meat shop. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks interference in the matter in such circumstances. ``` ``` 7.On the other hand, the learned Public ``` ``` Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid ``` ``` contentions. It is pointed out that even ``` ``` though PWs.1 and 2, the witnesses to the ``` ``` seizure mahazar, have turned hostile to the ``` ``` prosecution, PWs.7 to 9, the official ``` ``` witnesses who were the members of the police party who detected the offence, have given a ``` ``` consistent version as to the incident. Apart ``` ``` from the same, the evidence of PW3, who was ``` ``` examined to prove the recovery of the articles ``` ``` from the possession of the 2[nd] accused, has ``` ``` also clearly mentioned the acquaintance of the 1[st] accused with the 2[nd] accused while the 2[nd] ``` 10 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` accused was staying in the said lodge. It was also pointed out that the lack of furnishing copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded by PW9 to the appellant is not a matter of much consequence as both the statements given by the victims to PW9 and PW10 were the same. The said aspect is clearly deposed by PW11. ``` ``` 8.I have gone through the records. From the materials placed on record, it is discernible that the crucial evidence that the prosecution has relied upon is the oral evidence of PWs.7 to 9. PW9 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara, who detected the offence. According to him, on 23.3.2001, he got information that a person named Joy was in possession of counterfeit currency notes and was carrying out the transaction using the same. As per the ``` 11 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` information received, such transactions were being made at the meat shop of the said Joy situated near Puthoor junction. Immediately thereupon, PW9, along with the police party consisting of PWs.7 and 8 and others, rushed to the said spot. When they reached, upon seeing the police party, the appellant got panic and tried to escape from the place of ``` ``` occurrence. Immediately, the police party apprehended him and conducted a body search. Thereupon, 62 currency notes could be ``` ``` recovered from a plastic kit tagged on his ``` ``` dhoti, and upon questioning, the appellant informed the police that it was the amount he received by selling meat. On scrutiny, it was found that some of the notes carried the same serial numbers, and the quality and printing were also different from the genuine currency notes. On scrutiny, it was realised that the ``` 12 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` same were counterfeit currency notes. On further questioning, he revealed that he received the said counterfeit currency notes from the 2[nd] accused, who was residing at Rohini Hotel and Restaurant at Kottarakkara in room No.102. Later, an inspection was conducted in the said hotel from where the 2[nd] accused was arrested after having been found in possession of 10 counterfeit currency notes, which were similar to the notes seized from the possession of the appellant herein. ``` ``` 9.PW7 is the Head Constable who ``` ``` accompanied PW9 while conducting the search and seizure of counterfeit currency notes. His evidence is clearly in tune with the evidence given by PW9. He also mentioned about the presence of PW8 along with them while the seizure and arrest of the appellant were affected. He also stated that Exhibit P1 ``` 13 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` mahazar was prepared by him as per the instructions of PW9. PW8 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of Kottarakkara Police Station, who was a party to the inspection team. He clearly gave evidence in tune with the evidence of PWs.7 and 9. He clearly stated the sequence of events as narrated by PWs.7 and 9 and that the mahazar was prepared by PW7 as instructed by PW9. ``` ``` 10.PW1 and PW2 are the witnesses who had affixed their signature in Exhibit P1 seizure mahazar, which is a contemporaneous document prepared at the time of the recovery of the counterfeit currency notes from the possession ``` ``` of the appellant herein. It is true that both the said witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution, although they admitted their respective signatures in Exhibit P1. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently ``` 14 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` contended that because there are no independent witnesses available evidencing the recovery of the articles from the possession of the appellant, it is not safe to convict the appellant based on the depositions of the official witnesses alone. He also has a case that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case, as he used to submit complaints against the illegal brewing of arrack by some persons before Kundara Police Station. As there was inaction on the part of the Kundara Police, he also submitted complaints before the Superintendent of Police and on account of the enmity due to some, the crime was ``` ``` registered against the appellant by the Sub ``` ``` Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara at the ``` ``` instance of the Kundara police. ``` ``` 11.I have carefully gone through the materials placed on record by keeping in mind ``` 15 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` the contention raised by the appellant in this regard. Upon appreciating the entire materials before me, I do not find any reason to accept ``` ``` such contentions. It is true that, independent witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution, but merely because of that reason, it cannot be concluded that, the prosecution failed to establish their case. ``` ``` The position of law in this regard is well settled, and it is to the effect that if the evidence of official witnesses were found to be consistent and reliable, nothing would preclude the court from convicting the accused by relying upon the same. In such cases, the hostility shown by the independent witnesses cannot have any significance at all. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil [(2001)1 SCC 652], it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows: ``` 16 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` “It is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature.” ``` ``` Similarly, inSurinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(2020)2 SCC 563], It was observed as follows: ``` ``` “15. The judgment inJarnail Singhv.State of Punjab[Jarnail Singhv.State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1191] , relied on by the counsel for the respondent State also supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated. The evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved merely because of their official status.” ``` ``` By following the aforesaid decisions, it was ``` ``` held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2020)9 SCC ``` ``` 627] thatthe testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witnesses. ``` 17 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` Thus, while applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, it can be seen that the contentions raised by the appellant by placing reliance upon the hostility of PWs.1 and 2 cannot be accepted. As I have observed in the paragraphs referred to above, the depositions of PWs.7 to 9 are consistent in all material particulars, ``` ``` and there is no discrepancy in their evidence. Alltheirstatementsaremutually ``` ``` corroborative. As far as the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are concerned, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that both of them have admitted their signatures in Exhibit P1 mahazar. However, although they denied having witnessed the recovery a careful scrutiny of their evidence would give the impression that the appellant was known to them. When all these aspects are considered, I have no hesitation ``` 18 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` in holding that the evidence adduced by PWs.7 ``` ``` to 9 is trustworthy. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in placing reliance upon their testimonies for holding the appellant guilty of the offences. ``` ``` 12. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with ``` ``` regard to the discrepancies in the location of ``` ``` the meat stall and lack of evidence showing the ownership/possession of the appellant over ``` ``` the said shop. It is true that there is some discrepancy with respect to the same as is revealed from Ext.P7(a) site plan and the evidence of PWs.7 to 9. The evidence of PW6, Village Officer, also has some discrepancy with respect to the same. It is to be noted that as per the evidence of PW6, the meat shop is located 250 feet away from the junction, whereas as per Ext.P7(a), it was located at a distance of 7.5 feet from the junction. ``` 19 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` However, in this case, the discrepancy above cannot have any serious impact as far as the prosecution case is concerned. Here, in this case, there is no case for the prosecution that the articles were seized from the meat shop. The specific case of the prosecution, which was established through the evidence of PWs.7 to 9, was that the articles were seized ``` ``` from the body of the appellant while he was standing in front of the meat shop. Similarly, the lack of materials regarding the ownership of the meat shop is also not a material aspect, as the question whether the appellant was the owner of meat shop or not is not at all a matter which has something to do with the prosecution case. He was not implicated as an accused because of his connection with the meat shop. At the most, the only relevant aspect is that the information received by PW9 ``` 20 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` while he was in the police station was to the effect that the transactions of counterfeit currency notes were being carried out in a meat shop near Puthoor junction. However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution would clearly establish that the seizure was affected from the body of the appellant, and the sequence of events which led to such recovery was clearly and consistently mentioned by PWs.7 to 9. In such ``` ``` circumstances, the discrepancy in the location of the meat shop does not have any ``` ``` significance at all, and such discrepancy ``` ``` cannot, under any circumstances, lead to a conclusion that the appellant was not guilty. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the said contention as well. ``` ``` 13.Another crucial contention raised by ``` ``` the learned counsel for the appellant is that ``` 21 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` the prosecution did not provide entire materials to the accused, and this has caused prejudice to him. It is pointed out that before PW10 took charge of the investigation, ``` ``` PW9 conducted an investigation and recorded the statements of certain witnesses. Later, ``` ``` witnesses were again questioned by CBCID after ``` ``` they took charge of the investigation. However, the earlier statements recorded by PW9 were not provided to him. Therefore, the appellant lost the opportunity to make use of ``` ``` the said statements, to contradict their statements, and thereby to challenge the credibility of the said witnesses. In this regard, it is seen that the reliance was placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Murali v. State of Kerala[2003(3)KLT 226]. It is true that, in that decision, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the ``` 22 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` non-furnishing of some of the statements or some part of the statements of the same witnesses will vitiate the trial, and it would amount to denial of a fair trial. I have ``` ``` carefully gone through the observations made by this Court in the said judgment. From such ``` ``` examination, it could be seen that the facts and circumstances under which such an ``` ``` observation was made by this Court were completely different. It was a case in which the statement which was allegedly not ``` ``` furnished to the accused was marked in ``` ``` evidence, and it was found that the statements ``` ``` of the said witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C, were mutually contradictory. As far as facts of this case are concerned, it can be seen that, in the evidence of PW11, the Investigation Officer who submitted the final report ``` ``` had clearly stated that he examined the earlier ``` ``` statements given by the witnesses to ``` 23 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` the Sub Inspector of Police also and found that both the statements given by the witnesses were same. Besides the same, in the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, it is observed that, at the time of the hearing, he also perused the case diary and found that there were no contradictions in the statements of the respective witnesses. Even though such an exercise was not at all warranted by the learned Sessions Judge, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the same cannot be treated as a crucial factor warranting the interference in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. This is mainly because the aforesaid question was considered by another Division Bench of this Court in Sukumaran v. State of Kerala [2005 KHC 646]. In Sukumaran’s case (supra), it was categorically held by ``` 24 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` this Court thatmere non-supply of the statements recorded under section 161 by itself cannot amount to prejudice, and it will not vitiate the trial. It was observed that, the prejudice, if any, caused to the accused, has to be established. In the said decision, after referring to various decisions including the decisionS in Pulukkuri Kottaya v. Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67], Narayan Rao v. State of A.P. [AIR 1957 SC 737] and the other decisions, it was observed as follows: ``` ``` “22 What emerges from the above decisions is that non supply of statements recorded under S.161(3) Cr.P.C. by itself cannot amount to prejudice, nor will it vitiate the trial. Prejudice is a mental decision based on grounds other than reason or justice or a premature or adversely biased opinion or a detriment or injury or harm arising from a hasty or unfair judgment or a judgment favourable or unfavourable formed beforehand or without due examination. The question of prejudice is ultimately one of inference from of the facts and circumstances of each case (Moseb Kaka Chowdhari v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1956 SC 536). It is not enough merely to allege that the accused has suffered prejudice. It should further be pointed out as to how or in what manner the accused has suffered prejudice. Even where prejudice has been made out in a given case, the decision has been made out in a given case, the decision in Narayan Rao's case (AIR 1957 SC 737) has indicated the course which the court may adopt:- ``` 25 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` "Certainly, if it is shown, in a particular case on behalf of the accused persons that the omission on the part of the police officers concerned or of the Magistrate before whom the committal proceedings had pended, has caused prejudice to the accused, in the interest of justice, the Court may reopen the proceedings by insisting upon full compliance with the provision of the Code". ``` ``` In Noor Khan's case also it has been observed as follows:- ``` ``` "......... and where the circumstances are such that the court may reasonably infer that prejudice has resulted to the accused from the failure to supply the statements recorded under S.161,the court would be justified in directing that the conviction be set aside and in a proper case to direct that the defect be rectified in such manner as the circumstances may warrant." ``` ``` In the case on hand there is no proof of prejudice due to the alleged non supply of the statements recorded by PW 14.” ``` ``` 23 In the light of the aforesaid pronouncement of the law by the apex court, the earlier decisions of this Court cited at the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellants holding that non supply of statements is itself prejudice and vitiates the trial, may not be reflective of the true statement of law. It is true that the expanded horizon of the concept of "right to life" enshrined in Art.21 of the Constitution of India had not been discovered in the early two and a half decades of the adoption of the Indian Constitution. The various facets of the rights of human beings in every conceivable situations of life have since been perceived and brought to light through the painstaking labour of the legal fraternity. The concept of "fair trial" and "fair procedure" in the dispensation of justice was certainly different in the formative period of our constitution from what it is today. But in spite of that, we cannot fail to notice the binding declaration of the law by the Apex Court even in its recent pronouncements adverted to above upholding the legal position stated in AIR 1957 SC 737 and AIR 1964 SC 286. For the reasons already we are unable to uphold the contentions on behalf of the appellants that the non supply of the statements recorded by PW 14 has caused prejudice to the accused. In fact, the accused were ``` 26 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` furnished with the statements recorded by PW 16 under S.161(3) Cr.P.C. and they had effectively shaped their defence on the basis of those statements which alone were relied on. Even if prejudice had been made, the consequence is not acquittal, but as indicated in AIR 1967 SC 637, AIR 1964 SC 286, the consequence is to set aside the conviction and remit the case to the Trial Court to rectify the defect.” ``` ``` 14.In the said decision, it is also held that even if the prejudice has been ``` ``` established, the consequence cannot be an acquittal, but instead, the conviction has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back. ``` ``` 15.When applying the principles to the facts of this case, I find that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted. ``` ``` First of all, there is absolutely no material before me indicating any prejudice caused to ``` ``` the accused on account of non supply of the earlier statements of the witnesses. This is particularly because, considering the entire ``` 27 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` materials placed before me, the only possible impression that could be gathered is that there were no contradictions in the statements ``` ``` given by the witnesses. Yet another crucial aspect to be noticed is that the independent witnesses who were examined to prove the role of the appellant viz. PWs.1 and 2 have turned hostile to the prosecution. Therefore, the ``` ``` significance of their earlier statements is not all relevant as far as the case advanced by the defence is concerned. The other ``` ``` witnesses are official witnesses, and as mentioned above, there is nothing to indicate that there were any contradictions in their statements recorded on both occasions. In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. ``` 28 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` 16.Another contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is about the delay in the production of the articles. It is pointed out that the articles were seized on 23.3.2001, and the same reached in the court on 7.4.2001. However, I am not inclined to accept this as a ground for any prejudice being caused to the appellant. Exhibit P1 is ``` ``` the mahazar evidencing recovery of the counterfeit currency note, which is a contemporaneous document. I have already found by relying upon the evidence of PWs.7 to 9 that the recovery was amply proved. In Exhibit P1, a clear description of all the counterfeit currency notes with their respective serial numbers are seen mentioned. The appellant does ``` ``` not have a case that MO2 series counterfeit currency notes have different serial numbers than those mentioned in Exhibit P1 mahazar. In such ``` 29 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` circumstances, I do not find any legal sustainability in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this ``` ``` regard. ``` ``` 17.Further contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that, even if it is accepted for the argument's sake that counterfeit currency notes were seized from the possession of the appellant, that by itself is not sufficient to hold the appellant is guilty of the offences. To establish the culpability of the appellant and to hold him guilty of the offence, besides the possession, the prosecution also has an obligation to establish that such possession was with the knowledge that the said currency notes were counterfeit currency notes. However, in this case, on scanning through the entire materials, there are sufficient ``` 30 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` indicationsestablishingtheconscious possession of the appellant as to its falsity. The evidence of PWs.7 to 9 would indicate that ``` ``` upon seeing the police party, the appellant got perplexed and made an attempt to flee from the scene of occurrence. The appellant was ``` ``` apprehended by the police, and upon conducting a search, 62 counterfeit currency notes were ``` ``` found from his body. The fact that he got panic by seeing the police and attempted to flee from the place itself would show that the appellant was very well aware of the nature of currency notes. Besides the same, another crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, based on the information furnished by the appellant, a search was conducted in ``` ``` Rohini Hotel and Restaurant from where the 2[nd] ``` ``` accused was arrested along with ten counterfeit currency notes. The arrest of the ``` 31 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` 2[nd]accused and seizure of counterfeit ``` ``` currency notes from him were established by the evidence of the official witnesses and corroborated by the evidence of PW3, the ``` ``` Manager of the said lodge. In his deposition, PW3 clearly stated that he knows the appellant herein and identified the appellant as a person who used to visit the 2nd accused in the hotel regularly. When all these aspects are considered, it leads to a conclusive finding that the possession of the counterfeit currency notes by the appellant was with the knowledge and he was keeping the said articles ``` ``` with him for the purpose of the transaction. In such circumstances, I do not find any ground to accept the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. ``` 32 Crl.Appeal No.479/2006 ``` 18.Thus, considering all the relevant ``` ``` aspects, I do not find any merit in this ``` ``` appeal. The guilt of the appellant is clearly ``` ``` established from the materials placed on record. ``` ``` In such circumstances, this appeal is ``` ``` dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the 1[st] ``` ``` Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, in ``` ``` S.C.No.1651/2003. ``` ``` Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` ``` pkk ```