Possession of counterfeit currency established through circumstantial evidence, while ownership of the recovery site remains unproven; conviction upheld with modified sentence considering age and delay.

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.596 of 2009 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode who tried the appellant on a charge under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( IPC ) found him guilty of the offence under Section 489C alone. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Code).

2. The allegations against the appellant were the following:

At about 07.45 p.m., on 27.03.2005, the appellant purchased bed sheets worth Rs.150/- from PW1, a street vendor selling clothes near Colombo Stores in S.M.Street, Kozhikode and gave a 500 rupee note for payment of its price. That currency note was found to be fake, which resulted in an altercation. As informed, the police reached and took the appellant and one C.V.Kareem to the police station. In the search conducted subsequently, currency notes of 100, 500 and 1000 rupee denominations were seized from house bearing door No.11/505 of Panangad Panchayat which belongs to the appellant. Those currency notes were found to be counterfeit and thus the appellant is said to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. On a charge for the offences under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC , the appellant was tried before the court below. PWs.1 to 16 were examined, Exts.P1 to P17 were marked, and MOs.1 to 3 were identified. During the examination under Section 313(1)(b) of Code, the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He further stated that on 27.03.2005 he purchased two bed sheets from a street vendor for Rs.150/- and delivered a 500 rupee note.

The street vendor on the pretext of getting change went to a nearby shop and on returning, another note was handed over that ensued in an altercation and the initiation of the case. He, along with Kareem was taken into custody by the police, and the currency note was seized by the police. He is innocent whereas, in order to save the said Kareem, this case was foisted. It is further stated that the house from where the currency notes were seized did not belong to him as he sold it to one Biju much earlier.

4. No defence evidence except a contradiction, Ext. D1 was let in. The court below, after considering and appreciating the evidence, found the appellant not guilty of the offence under Section 489B of the IPC , but found him guilty of the offence under Section 489C of the . The court below found that the evidence tendered by the prosecution was insufficient to prove that the appellant used a counterfeit note as alleged in the charge. The court below, however, held that the evidence tendered through PWs.4, 5 and 12 together with the attending circumstances proved beyond doubt that the appellant possessed counterfeit currency notes of 100, 500 and 1000 rupee denominations.

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

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that one C.V. Kareem was also arrested along with the appellant at 07:30 p.m., on 27.03.2005 from the S.M.Street and a bag in his possession was seized at that time. However, the said C.V. Kareem was not implicated as an accused or arrayed as a witness. What was the role of C.V. Kareem is not reflected from the evidence and that glaring suppression probabilised the defence plea that the prosecution has manipulated the evidence and falsely implicated the appellant in the case. It is contended that when such a serious doubt arose about the very genesis of the case, the prosecutio