Murugan v. State by Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Counterfeit Currency Wing, Chennai

BAIL SLIPThat the Petitioner/Appellant namely Murugan was directedto be released on bail by the Order of this Court dated 15.07.2004and made in CRl.M.P.No.7014/2004 in Crl.App.352/2004.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14..02..2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMYCrl. Appeal No.352 of 2004Murugan... Appellant / A2-Versus-State by Inspector of Police,C.B.C.I.D.,Counterfeit Currency Wing,Chennai.[Crime No.999 of 1997]... RespondentMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgement ofconviction and sentence dated 20.02.2004 recorded by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu inS.C.No.368 of 2002.For Appellant: Mr.V.Ranganathan for Mr.V.V.SairamFor Respondent : Mr.N.Kumanan, Government AdvocateJUDGEMENTChallenging the conviction and sentence imposed inS.C.No.368 of 2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FastTrack Court No.I, Chengalpattu , A2 therein has come forward withthis criminal appeal.2. The Appellant, who was A2 before the trial Court,stands convicted for the offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C ofIPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine ofRs.10,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for further 1 year for theoffence under Section 489-B of IPC and to undergo R.I. for 5 yearsfor offence under Section 489-C of IPC. Both the sentences wereordered to run concurrently. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is asfollows:- PW-3 Sampath @ Sampath Kumar is a resident of MaruthiNagar, Asthinapuram, Chromepet. PW-3 used to have talk frequentlywith one Purushothaman. The said Purushothaman is known to A2, theappellant herein. The deceased Vijayakumar was a neighbour ofP.W.3. In that course of transaction, A2 developed friendshipwith PW-3. PW-2 Dilli is a two wheeler mechanic. He is running hisworkshop at Gandhi Road, Chitlapakkam. A2 as a customer developedrelationship with PW-2. While so, the appellant is said to havesuggested an illegal business. PW-2 refused to accept the proposalof A2 and demanded for good job. PW-1 is a supplier in a Fast Foodshop which is run by one Manoharan. On the fateful night, both A2and the deceased Vijayakumar had their food and tendered acounterfeit currency with the face value of Rs.100/- for billamount of Rs.35/- . When the said Manoharan questioned about thecurrency, A2, the appellant, fled away from the place ofoccurrence. P.W.1 and two others handed over the deceasedVijayakumar to Chromepet Police Station. P.W.5 Manoharan lodged acomplaint Ex.P.1 to P.W.5, the Inspector of Police, ChromepetPolice Station. On receipt of the same, P.W.5, registered a casein Cr.No.999 of 1997 for offence under Sections 489-B , 489-C and120-B of IPC. He prepared Ex.P.6 Printed FIR, recovered M.O.3 -Counterfeit currency with the face value of hundred rupees undercover of Ex.P.7 - Form-95. At about 7.15 p.m. P.W.5 arrested thedeceased Vijayakumar and recorded the voluntary confession of theaccused. Ex.P.8 is the admissible portion of the voluntaryconfession. Pursuant to the said admissible portion of theconfession, P.W.5 recovered few other counterfeit currencies. Atabout 9.00 p.m. on identification by the deceased Vijayakumar,P.W.5 the Inspector of Police arrested A2 and recovered 78counterfeit currencies with the face value of hundred rupees. Incontinuation of his investigation, P.W.5 produced all thecounterfeit currencies before the learned Judicial Magistrate,Tambaram and the learned Judicial Magistrate in turn forwarded thesame to Nasik for opinion. P.W.6 the Technical Officer onexamination found that they were all counterfeit currencies. Hisopinion dated 04.10.1998 is Ex.P.10. Thereafter, A1 was remandedunder P.T. Warrant. P.W.8 continued the investigation, examined theDoctors, recorded their statements, collected the medicalcertificates and upon completion of the investigation laid thefinal report against A1 and A2, the appellant herein foroffences under Sections 120-B, 489-B, 489-C of IPC.4. On committal, the case was taken up for trial by thetrial Court. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 120-Band 489-B of IPC as against both A1 and A2 and under Section 489-Cas against A2 alone. During the trial, as many as 8 witnesses wereexamined on the side of the prosecution and 12 documents wereexhibited. M.O.1 to 3 material objects were produced. Oncompletion of recording of evidence on the side of the prosecution,the Appellant / A2 and A1 were questioned under Section 313 ofCr.P.C. wherein they denied the evidences of the prosecutionwitnesses. They did not chose to examine any witness or to exhibitany document. Having considered all the above, the trial Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ found the Appellant / A2 alone guilty for offence under Section489-B and 489-C of IPC and imposed appropriate punishment asindicated at the earlier paragraphs of this judgement and insofaras an offence under Section 120-B is concerned, the trial courtacquitted the Appellant/A2. A1 was, however, acquitted from boththe charges. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellantvehemently contended that A1 has unnecessarily been connected inthis case and there was no investigation by the prosecuting agencyin regard to the alleged handing over of Rs.23,000/- worthcounterfeit currencies to A2. The trial court ought not to haveproceeded to convict the appellant/A2 alone for the offence sunderSections 489-B and 489-C of IPC. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further contendedthat the deceased Vijayakumar has already given a statementimmediately after his arrest to the police regarding thepossession of counterfeit currencies with the appellant and as suchthe so called recovery pursuant to the confession of A2 would notfall within the meaning of Section 27 of the Code of CriminalProcedure and as such, conviction on the basis of the confession ofthe deceased against A2 is not in accordance with law and theconviction based on the same is liable to be set aside.7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would onthe other hand contend that the recovery of counterfeit currencieshave been made only through the confession of the deceased and thetrial court rightly formed the basis for conviction of theappellant. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the criminalappeal.8. As I have narrated earlier, the appellant has been foundguilty under Sections 489(B) & 489(C) of IPC [Charge Nos.2 & 3]on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the evidence ofP.W.5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that itis not safe to convict the appellant/A2 on the basis ofuncorroborated testimony of P.W.2. He would further point out thatthere is a material contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 andP.W.5 in respect of the alleged possession of 78 fake currencynotes with the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellantwould take me through the evidence of P.W.5 to substantiate theabove said contention.9. I have considered the above submissions.10. As pointed out by the learned counsel for theappellant, in chief examination, P.W.1 had categorically statedthat as soon as the appellant was identified by the deceased Vijayakumar, he took out the above fake currency notes from his house.But, P.W.5, the Inspector of Police would state that on beingidentified by the deceased Vijaya kumar, the appellant gaveconfession and thereafter, in pursuance of the confession of theappellant, he took out 78 fake currencies from the bureau of his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ house. It is noticeable that P.W.2 has not categorically stated asto wherefrom the fake currency notes were taken by the appellant.In general terms, he has stated that from the house of theappellant, these fake currency notes were recovered. Thus, thismaterial contradiction would only create a doubt in the evidence ofP.W.2. It is because of this contradiction, I am of the view thatit is not safe to sustain the conviction solely on the basis of theevidence of P.W.2.11. In view of the above, I hold that the prosecution hasfailed to prove its case beyond any reasonable. Hence, theappellant is entitled for acquittal.12. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and theconviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 489-B and489-C of IPC and sentences imposed on him by judgement dated20.02.2004 made in S.C.No.368 of 2002 on the file of the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu toundergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- indefault to undergo R.I. for further 1 year for the offence underSection 489-B of IPC and to undergo R.I. for 5 years for offenceunder Section 489-C of IPC are set aside. Fine, if any, paid by theappellant/A2 is ordered to be refunded to him. Bail Bond executedby the appellant shall stand cancelled. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram2.do Thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Chengalpattu3.The Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chengalpattu4.The Prl.Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu,5.The Public Prosecutor, HighCourt, Madras.6.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Counterfeit Currency (wing )Chennai.7.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Cuddalore.8.The Section Officer,Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.V.Sriram, Advocate, SR.11443Crl. Appeal No.352 of 2004mbs(co)pmk.17.3.2011