Mohammed Shabeer, S/O Late Abdul Khadar vs State By Sub-Inspector Of Police

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2020 Supreme(Kar) 67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, J.
Mohammed Shabeer, S/O Late Abdul Khadar – Appellant
Versus
State By Sub-Inspector Of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.869, 880 of 2010, 872 of 2011
Decided on : 20-02-2020

Subject

Criminal Law - Counterfeit Currency Offenses

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.20(3)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.313, S.233, S.2(h), S.164(2), S.463
CUSTOMS ACT: S.108, S.135
EVIDENCE ACT: S.24, S.25
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.489(b), S.489(c), S.34, S.120(b), S.419, S.120(b)(1), S.489)a_
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT: S.53, S.36, S.52, S.41, S.42, S.43, S.44

Headnote

(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120-B, 489-B, and 489-C - Accused convicted for trafficking counterfeit currency - Conviction of Accused Nos.2 and 3 set aside due to lack of evidence establishing mens rea; Absence of crucial evidence against Accused No.4 led to his acquittal - Trial process flawed, alleging double jeopardy in prosecution. (Paras 28-30)

(B) Admissions and confessions - Section 108 of the Customs Act - Statements not deemed confessions under IPC standards; Executed under duress renders them inadmissible for prosecuting criminal charges outside Customs Act's scope. (Paras 24 and 26)

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
M/S HASHMATH PASHA & ASSTS
For the Respondent: SRI. V.S. HEGDE, SRI M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, adv

Table of Content
1. overview of case and appellate procedure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. details of dri's actions and evidence collection. (Para 5)
3. arguments on admissibility of confession statements. (Para 6 , 7)
4. claims of innocence and evidentiary issues. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. court's analysis of procedural flaws. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. courts conclusions and analysis of evidence. (Para 18 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. final judgment on appeals. (Para 33)

ORDER :

Crl.A.No.880/2010 is preferred by Accused No.2/Mohammed Shabeer and Accused No.3/Mayaddi challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mangalore, D.K., in S.C.No.63/2008 dated 26.07.2010. Both of them were convicted for the offences under Sections 489-B, 489-C read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 120-B read with Section 489- B and 489-C of IPC but however they were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 489-A and 419 read with Section 34 of IPC. As regards sentence, Accused Nos.2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each for the offence punishable under Section 489-B read with Section 34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each; in default of the same, they were to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Further, Accused Nos.2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 489-C read with Section 34 of IPC. Further they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 120-B(1) read with Section 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC. All the sentences of accused nos.2 and 3 were to run concurrently and they were entitled to claim set off for the period during which they had spent in judicial custody.

2. Crl.A.869/2010 is preferred by Accused No.4/Mohammed Asif challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.63/2008 dated 26.07.2010. By the said judgment, Accused No.4 was convicted for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 489- C of the IPC but however was acquitted of the offences under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 419 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. Crl.A.872/2011 is preferred by one Santhosh K @ Santhosh Shetty @ Rohit @ Cable Santhu who was Accused No.1 in S.C.No.63/2008. But since he was absconding, the case against him was split up and was registered as S.C.No.51/2010. The connected appeal Crl.A.872/2011 has been preferred by the said accused Santhosh challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mangalore, D.K., in S.C.No.51/2010 dated 8.8.2011. By the said judgment, the accused/Santhosh was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC but however was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-C and 419 read with Section 34 of IPC. As regards sentence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 489-B read with Section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 120-B(1) read with Section 489-B of IPC. The said sentences were to run concurrently and was entitled to claim set off for the period during which he had spent in judicial custody.

4. The present appeals arise out of two judgments rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.63/2008 dated 26.07.2010 and in S.C.No.51/2010 dated 08.08.2011. While S.C.No.63/2010 pertains to the judgment of conviction and sentence in respect of Accused Nos.2 to 4 in Cr.No.38/2008 registered before the Kavoor Police Station, S.C.No.51/2010 pertains to the judgment of conviction and sentence in respect of one Santhosh who was arraigned as Accused No.1 in