IMPORTANT POINT
While conducting an investigation in offences under Sections 489A, 489C and 489D read with Section 120B IPC, the independent witnesses should be as one prescribed under section 104 of the CrPC and the final report shall be filed on time, without any delay, as there are chances of accused being escaped from the allegations leveled against them through an unholy relations.

JUDGMENT

[CRL.A.2027/2004, CRL.A.2079/2004, CRL.A.2080/2004]

“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. After going through the entire records and the impugned judgment in this case, that is my feeling. The incident in this case happened about 30 years back. PW19, the Circle Inspector of Police, Hill Palace Police Station, receives reliable information on 21.03.1990, regarding counterfeiting and possession of Indian Currency Notes in a building bearing No.XXX/750, situated within his jurisdiction. He proceeded to the place along with two witnesses, an accused in murder case and a tea seller in the Police Station. He searched and seized several counterfeit notes, machinery for printing counterfeit notes etc. from the building No. XXX/750. According to him, accused Nos.1 to 8 were present and found engaged in counterfeiting currency notes. The investigation was conducted in this case and a final report was filed after 10 years, i.e., on 25/08/2000. When trial started in the court, all the witnesses turned hostile except PW19 and PW20 Police Officers. They deposed that the accused Nos.1 to 8 were present at the place from where the seizure is made as per Ext.P1 search list. But, PW21, the investigating officer deposed before the court that, the accused Nos.1 to 8 were not present there and the prosecution declared him hostile. PW21 is the Detective Inspector, Crime Branch, Counterfeiting Squad. When he gave evidence in this case, he retired from service. After the retirement, he deposed before the court against the prosecution case and hence he was even declared hostile by the prosecution. The facts of the case in detail are narrated below.

2. The appellants in Crl.Appeal No.2027/2004 are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Session Case No.17/2003 on the files of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The appellants in Crl.Appeal Nos.2080/2004 and 2079/2004 are the accused Nos.6 and 7 in the above case. The above case is chargesheeted by the Detective Inspector, CBCID, Counterfeiting Squad, Ernakulam, against 13 accused including the appellants in these Crl. Appeals. Accused No.13 was absconding. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were also absconding originally and subsequently they appeared and the learned Sessions Judge proceeded against the accused Nos. 1 to 12 together. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 489A to 489D read with Section 120B IPC and also under Section 120B IPC(hereinafter the appellants are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the trial court).

3. To substantiate the case, prosecution examined PW1to PW25. Exhibits P1 to P50 are the exhibits marked by the prosecution. Ext.D1 is marked as an exhibit on the side of the defence. MO1 to MO49 are the material objects.

4. After going through the evidence and documents, the learned Sessions Judge found that accused Nos.1 to 7 are guilty under Sections 489A, 489C and 489D read with Section 120B IPC and also for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. They are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 489B IPC. The accused No.8 was not found guilty and he was acquitted. Accused Nos.1 to 7 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each for the offence punishable under Sections 489A, 489C and 489D read with 120B IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. All the accused are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 489A. In default of payment of fine, the accused are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The court ordered that the substantive sentence will run concurrently. The set off was also ordered. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, these appeals are filed by accused Nos.1 to 7.

5. Heard the counsel for the appellants and the Public Prosecutor.

6. The counsel for the appellants submitted that, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted in toto, no offence under Sections 489