The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to procedural rules in investigations and the necessity of proving mens-rea for specific offences under the IPC.

1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 28.08.2008 passed in S.C.No.171 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.3, Thiruvallur, thereby convicted the appellants for the offence under sections 489(A), 489(C) and 489(D) of IPC and sentenced them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for each charge and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each charge and in default payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for each charge.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the secret information, Thiru A.Udayakumar, Inspector of Police, CC Wing, Tiruchy Unit, PW-1 on 13.04.2005 along with his party, proceeded to the house located at Door No.10/1-C, Chellan Street, Manickavasagam street, Chinnasekkadu, Manali, Chennai - 68 and made house search after given advanced intimation to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. On such search found that the accused was making counterfeit currency notes for Rs.500 denomination with the help of computer and its accessories. They printed Rs.500 hundred denomination counterfeit currency notes in same Serial No as 6 DC418928. The counterfeit currency notes along with the computer and its accessories were connected with materials as itself. Thereafter, PW-1 on such report, registered a case in Cr.No.4 of 2005 under section 489(A), (C) and (D) of IPC and the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

3. On receipt of the same report of PW.1, PW6 registered the case and recorded confession statement of the accused. P.W.6 also recorded statements from the other witnesses. The seized material objects were sent for expert opinion and after receipt of the same, he filed charge sheet as against the 1st accused for the offence under sections 489(A), 489(C) and 489(D) of IPC. As against the 2nd accused, charge sheet was filed for the offence under sections 489(A) & 489(C) of IPC. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as stated above and the accused denied the same as false and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to PW.7 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked and material objects 1 to 15 were produced. The PW.1, Inspector of Police on the secret information on 13.04.2005, made a house search along with his party-men and detected printing of counterfeit currency notes for the denomination of Rs.500 with the same serial number for a tune of Rs.49,000/- with the help of computer and its accessories at Door No.10/1-C, Chellan Street, Manickavasagam street, Chinnasekkadu, Manali, Chennai 68. In the presence of witnesses, PW-3 the Village Administrative Officer seized the same. He also prepared seizure mahazar Ex.P.2 and the search list Ex.P3 and submitted to the PW.6, the investigating officer. His search report marked as Ex.P.1, Seizure Mahazaar was marked as Ex P.2 and the search list was marked as Ex.P.3. The material objects seized by PW.1 were produced as material objects 1 to 15 as per Ex.P.2.

5. The PW-2 on 18/05/2005, received the material objects 1 to 15 under Form-95 and, as requested by the investigating officer, seized counterfeit currency notes sent to Hyderabad for examination. The requisitions were marked as Exs.P4 and Ex.P5. Thereafter the seized counterfeit currency notes was examined by PW-4 and he concluded that the seized currency notes are counterfeit notes and sent his report. The said report is marked as Ex.P8. The other seized material objects were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Andhra Pradesh and examined by PW-5. His report was marked as Ex.P.9. On receipt of the special report Ex.P.1, PW-6 registered the case and the F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P.10. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet as mentioned above. The above incriminating materials were put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the same as false and their defence was a total denial. The accused did not examine any witnes