IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 313 of Cr.P.C, in every inquiry or trial, any circumstances appearing in the evidence against an accused should be put to him for enabling him to explain the same-If there is no evidence of any witness to show that the counterfeit notes were of such a nature or description that a mere look at them would convince any person of average intelligence that it was counterfeit notes, there cannot be any conviction under section 489 B or 489 C of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant in this appeal is the first accused in S.C No.251 of 2003, on the file of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. He, along with another, was charge sheeted by the CBCID (CFS), Kozhikode, alleging offences punishable under Sections 489 (B) and (C) read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused were found in possession of two counterfeit notes of 100 rupee denomination, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be counterfeit notes and intending to use the same as genuine. The further case of the prosecution is that the first accused gave two of the counterfeit notes to PW6 as compensation when he met with an accident while working with the first accused as an arecanut climber. The case was investigated, and the final report was filed by the CBCID (CFS), Kozhikode. On appearance before the trial court, the trial court framed charge under Sections 489 (B) and 489 (C) read with Section 34 IPC.

3. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW12. Exts.P1 to P8 are the documents marked on the side of the prosecution. Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the defence. MO1 to MO3 are the counterfeit notes.

4. After going through the evidence and the documents, the trial court found that the second accused is not guilty of the charges, and he was acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first accused was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, each under Sections 489(B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code. The court also ordered that the sentence shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the first accused filed the above appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Sections 489(B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code is attracted in this case.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is oral and documentary evidence to prove that the accused committed the offences under Sections 489(B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the trial court considered the entire evidence in a proper perspective, and there is nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

8. The point for consideration is whether the accused committed the offences under Sections 489(B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Altogether 12 witnesses were examined in this case. PW5 is the Managing Partner of M/s. C.H.Assu and Brothers at Big Bazar, Kozhikode. He directed PW4 his employee to get a demand draft of Rs.31,083/-from the State Bank of India. He entrusted an amount of Rs.31,083/-and another Rs.500/-to PW4. PW4 went to the State Bank of India, Palayam Branch, for getting the demand draft. He had handed over the amount entrusted by PW5 to him to PW2. PW2, the bank's cashier, found that one of the notes received from PW4 is a suspected counterfeit note. He reported the same to PW1, the Branch Manager. After that, the note was examined based on the ultraviolet rays test, and it was found that the particular note is counterfeit. He identified the same as MO1. He recorded the statement of PW4 as Ext.P2. He reported the recovery of counterfeit currency as per Ext.P1 in Form B. The statement, along with the complaint in Form B signed by PW1 was sent to the Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode. The Commissioner forwarded the same to PW9, who registered Crime No.258 of 1994 under Section 489(C) Cr.P.C. Ext.P5 is the FIR. This is the evidence regarding the recovery of MO1.

10. PW6 is an arecanut plucker. He was working under the first accused. According to PW6, he sustained injuries while plucking arecanuts under the first accused. He was hospitalised for treatment. He requested the first accu