The mandatory registration of FIR upon receiving information about a cognisable offence, as per Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is crucial to the validity of subsequent proceedings.

Pradeep D. Waingankar, J. - This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 2-1-2010 in SC No. 106 of 2006 on the file of Fast Track Court, Puttur in Dakshina Kannada.

2. The brief facts which gave rise to this appeal are as under:

The appellants 1 to 3 were accused 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 106 of 2006 on the file of Fast Track Court, Puttur. On 10-2-2005 the Police Inspector, Puttur Rural Circle, T. Sanjeeva Naik (P.W. 1) received credible information at about 5.30 early in the morning that three persons were attempting to circulate fake currency notes near Nekkilady Bus Stop in Puttur Taluk. Immediately he rushed to his office, secured two panchas and Police Sub-Inspector of Uppinangady Police Station Sri S. Parashivamurthy (P.W. 9) and his staff and proceeded to Nekkilady Bus Stop in a police jeep at about 6.00 a.m. By seeing the police jeep three persons tried to run away. Somehow they were apprehended by P.W. 1 with the assistance of his staff. On interrogation, they disclosed their names as: (1) Ashru alias Ashraf; (2) Rasheed; and (3) Ashraf S/o. Yousuf. The P.W. 1 seized in all 210 fake currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from all the three persons apart from 13 genuine notes of Rs.10/- each. On further enquiry, they disclosed that the notes were obtained from one Abbas residing near Uppinangady Bus Stop and one Mamu alias Mohammad of Uruvalu Village for circulation of the same as genuine notes. As such, all the notes were seized under the panchanama-Ex. P. 1. All the three persons were arrested and brought to Uppinangady Police Station within whose jurisdiction the offence had taken place.

3. P.W. 1 lodged a complaint as per Ex. P. 2 against all the three accused for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C of Indian Penal Code, 1860. P.W. 9-the PSI of the Uppinangady Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 40 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C read with Section 34 of IPC. P.W. 9 upon further information from the accused already arrested, came to know that three other persons namely Mamu, U. Abbas and Kunhi alias Mohammad Kunhi were also involved in circulation of fake notes in different areas from whom accused 1 to 3 said to have obtained fake currency notes. Upon investigation, P.W. 9 filed charge-sheet against 6 accused persons for the aforesaid offences. It appears that during the pendency of the case, accused 5-U. Abbas died. The case against accused 6-Kunchi was split up. The charges were framed against accused 1 to 4.

4. The accused having denied the charges levelled against them, the prosecution, in order to establish the charges, examined as many as nine witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 9, Exs. P. 1 to P. 9 were marked apart from M.Os. 1 to 7. On behalf of the defence, the portion of the statement of P.W. 2 was marked as Ex. D. 1.

5. The defence of the accused was that of total denial and false implication. The learned Session Judge upon hearing the submissions made by both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, convicted the accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 489-C read with Section 34 of IPC, while acquitting the accused 4 Mamu by judgment dated 2-1-2010. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the accused 1 to 3 have preferred this appeal.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-accused 1 to 3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that after receipt of the credible information as to the circulation of fake notes which is a cognisable offence, the Police Officer proceeded to the spot, arrested the accused, seized the fake currency notes without registration of FIR which is mandatory under Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and as such the entire investigation made by the Officer and the charge-sheet filed against the accused is not sus