Point of Law: Criminal Law – Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes – Appeal against conviction – Testimony of witnesses – Reliability of - Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements are not fatal to the prosecution and that normal discrepancies are bound to occur due to normal errors of observations, errors of memory due to lapse of time etc., and marginal variations cannot be termed as improvements. Having gone through the oral evidence, I do not see any material contradiction among any of the witnesses in relation to the information, search and recovery of counterfeit notes.

JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal filed by the first accused in SC No. 533/2004 on the file of Court of Session, Kasaragod. He stands convicted and sentenced for committing offence punishable u/s 489-B of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.).

2. The prosecution case in short is that on 11/8/1999 at 6.00 p.m., PW1, Sub Inspector of police, Nileshwar, got a secret information and the same was recorded in the General Diary. Based on the same, he along with the police party proceeded to Sree Krishna Lottery Stall situated near Nileshwaram bus stand. PW2, salesman at Sree Krishna Lottery Stall, pointed out the appellant/accused No.1 to PW1. They took the appellant to a nearby police check post and on search by PW1 on the body of the appellant, seized 4 counterfeit currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/-. On questioning the appellant, he told him that those currency notes were given by the 2nd accused. PW1, then, arrested the appellant as per an arrest memo marked as Ext.P1. Thereafter, PW1 lodged the FIR, marked as Ext.P3. The appellant/accused was produced before the Court on the next day and he was remanded to judicial custody. On the basis of the said allegations, the prosecution was lodged against the appellant as well as the 2nd accused.

3. On receipt of summons, the appellant as well as 2nd accused appeared before the Court below. After hearing both sides, the charge was framed against the appellant and the 2nd accused for the offence punishable u/s 489-B r/w 34 of I.P.C. The charge was then read over and explained to both accused who pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exts.P1 to P5. MOs 1 to 4 were identified. The accused were questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against them during the evidence. They submitted that they are innocent. No defence evidence was adduced. Considering the evidence on record, the Court below found the appellant/1st accused guilty u/s 489-B of I.P.C. The appellant/1st accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year u/s 489-B of I.P.C. The 2nd accused was found not guilty and he was acquitted. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/1st accused preferred this appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant impeached the findings of the Court below on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to guilt. The counsel submitted that there are much contradictions with respect to the oral testimony of PW1 as compared to the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. The learned counsel further submitted that Ext.P5 expert report has not been legally proved by the prosecution. It was argued that the conclusion of the Court below leading to the conviction of the accused u/s 489-B is contrary to law and the reason stated by the Court below to hand down such order of conviction is unsustainable. The counsel added that, at any rate, the sentence awarded is excessive. The learned Prosecutor supported the findings and verdict handed down by the Court below and argued that necessary ingredients of S.489-B had been established and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

7. The prosecution relied on the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 4 to prove its case and to fix the culpability on the accused. PW1 is the detecting officer. PW2 and 3 are independent witnesses who witnessed the seizure and PW4 is the investigation officer. PW1 deposed that on 11/3/1999, while he was in the police station at 6.00 p.m, he received a secret information. The same was recorded in G.D. and based on the same, he along with the police party proceeded to Sree Krishna Lottery Stall situated near Nileshwar bus stand. PW2, the salesman at the lottery stall, pointed out the appellant and they intercepted him and t