Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 1110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Sathyan, S/o. Sankaran - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - Respondent
Crl.A No. 475 of 2006
Decided On : 17-06-2026
For the Appellant : Adithya Rajeev Amicus Curriae.
For the Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Sri Vipin Narayan A.
Inordinate delay in producing seized contraband before the court after recovery creates a significant doubt regarding the authenticity of the seizure, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 489B and 489C - Possession and use of counterfeit currency - Delayed production of contraband before Court - Effect on prosecution case - Prosecution has a mandatory duty to produce seized contraband before the Court at the earliest - Failure to do so within a reasonable time, particularly when production occurs months or a year later, creates strong doubt regarding the genuineness of the recovery - Benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. (Para 8)
(B) Criminal Trial - Duty of prosecution - Recovery of illicit items - When the veracity of the recovery is undermined by procedural lapses such as inordinate delay in producing items before the Court, the conviction cannot be sustained as the case fails to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the possession and use of counterfeit currency notes. The prosecution alleged that the accused was found in possession of several fake notes during an attempt to use one of them. However, it was established that the recovered notes were produced before the trial court only after an inordinate delay ranging from six months to one year from the date of the seizure.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the delay in producing the seized contraband before the court is a significant procedural lapse. This delay renders the recovery process suspect, as the chain of custody and the authenticity of the seized items cannot be reliably established, necessitating that the benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
Issues: Whether the inordinate delay in the production of the alleged counterfeit currency notes before the court is fatal to the prosecution's case and whether the conviction can be sustained in such circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution relies on the recovery of physical contraband to establish guilt, unexplained and inordinate delay in producing such items before the magistrate or court creates sufficient doubt regarding the integrity of the recovery, thus warranting the acquittal of the accused.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; accused acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context and summary of trial court conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conflicting stances on the evidentiary impact of procedural delays in producing counterfeit currency. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. delayed production of seized contraband to court creates fatal reasonable doubt for the prosecution. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence and procedural failure. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
The judgment in S.C.No.74/2005 dated 31.01.2006 on the files of the IInd Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, is under challenge in this appeal moved by the sole accused therein. Since the counsel, who had filed this appeal, had relinquished his engagement, this Court appointed Adv.Adithya Rajeev as Amicus Curiae and heard him in detail. Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the verdict under challenge and the evidence available.
2. In the present case, the prosecution alleges the commission of offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"), by the accused on the premise that, at about 8.15 p.m. on 19.01.1998, the accused possessed and used a counterfeit currency note of Rs.50/-. It is further alleged that a total eight counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- were recovered from his possession.
3. The learned Sessions Judge had tried the case. The evidence of the prosecution is confined to that of PW1 to PW4, Exts.P1 to P6 and M.O1 series. No defence evidence was adduced. On evaluation of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found commission of offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C, by the appellant/accused and was convicted and sentenced as under:
“Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) u/s.489B of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The accused is also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Sec.489 C of IPC. The substantial sentence shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by the accused shall be set off towards the substantial sentence of imprisonment.”
4. The learned Amicus Curiae argued that the 8 numbers of counterfeit currency notes of the denomination Rs.50/- were alleged to be recovered from the possession of the accused, in which one counterfeit currency note reached the court only on 06.07.1999 and the remaining seven forged notes reached on 01.06.1998 and the same could be seen from Exts.P4 and P4(a) property lists respectively. Thus the argument mooted by the learned Amicus Curiae is that when there is inordinate delay in producing the alleged counterfeit currency notes before court, the same is fatal to the prosecution. He also pointed out that in this case the arrest memo also was not tendered in evidence and in the decision reported in [2013 (3) KHC 308], Ramankutty v. Excise Inspector, Chelannur Range, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that if the arrest failed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire case set up by the prosecution would fall down and in such case the accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt.
5. Whereas it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the evidence available as that of the detecting officer and PW2 would suggest the recovery of 8 numbers of 50 rupee fake currency notes from the possession of the accused, when he attempted to use one out of the same; and therefore the offences are proved beyond reasonable doubts and in such a case, the delay in forwarding the counterfeit currency notes to the court, as pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae, is of no serious consequence. Therefore, the conviction and sentence are liable to be sustained.
6. The points arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether delayed production of the counterfeit currency notes alleged to be recovered from the possession of the appellant/accused before the court is fatal to the prosecution?
(ii) Whe
