Conviction for possessing counterfeit currency under IPC Section 489(C) upheld, but sentence modified due to consideration of prior custody and family circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2014 passed in S.C.No.120/2012 by the Adhoc District and Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Chintamani (for short trial 'Court').

2. Parties are referred to the same rank what they had before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Superintendent of Police, CA Squad, CID has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). It is alleged by the prosecution that on 31.05.2011 at about 03.00 p.m. when the Circle Inspector of Police went to check the vehicles along with the staff near the bypass road, leading to Sidlaghatta town on Chintamani-Chikkaballapura road, near Sidlaghatta the accused, after seeing them, tried to run away. The Police Inspector suspecting the accused instructed his staff to catch him. When the accused was questioned, he has not responded properly. His pant pocket was bulging, when he was questioned, he replied that he has kept money bundle. So due to suspension when they checked they found Rs.1,000/- denomination 94 notes which were numbered as JAB 912880 and it was resembling the currency notes. When he was questioned he has admitted that said notes are counterfeit currency notes. Hence same was seized in the presence of panchayathdars. Accused knowing fully well that the notes are counterfeit notes and kept the same with him for transaction. Thus, committed offence under Sections 489(B)and 489(C) of the IPC. Thereafter, Police has submitted charge sheet before the JMFC, Sidlaghatta. The Court has taken cognizance and remanded the accused to judicial custody and case was registered in C.C.No.357/2012. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of sessions. The accused was enlarged on bail.

4. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed the charges for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC. The same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all 13 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 13 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to lead any defence on his behalf.

6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489(B) of IPC and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489(C) of IPC and passed a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the trial Judge has committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has committed offence, even though there are glaring contradictions in evidence of PWs.6 to 13, the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence given by the witnesses to seizure mahazar. Even though PWs.1 to 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution, they have clearly stated that they have not seen the seizure of the fake currency notes from the possession of the appellant. They have also stated that they have not at all gone to the place where the appellant was apprehended. They have clearly stated that they have not witnessed this particular seizure mahazar except attesting their signature at