J U D G M E N T

Appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.479 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-III (Adhoc), Manjeri. Aforesaid case arises from Crime No.749 of 2002 of Perninthalmanna Police Station, which was later taken over by the CBCID, SIG III Branch, Kozhikode and numbered as Crime No.465/CR/CK/02. The aforesaid crime was registered against the appellant and another for the offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 15.10.2002 at 21.30 hours, the accused persons came to ‘Muthappan Bar’ situated in Sabreena Hotel at Perinthalmanna and the 1st accused attempted to purchase ½ bottle of ‘Majestic Rum’ from the above bar, using a counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/- denomination. Being suspicious of the genuineness of the note, the barman of the hotel reported the matter to the Supervisor and accordingly they verified the genuineness of the said currency. Upon being convinced that the same is fake, they apprehended the accused person and the matter was informed to the police. Police came to the spot immediately and the accused were arrested and fourteen counterfeit currency notes of 100 denomination were recovered from the possession of the 1st accused. Genuine notes for an amount of Rs.1,730/-, which was kept in a black purse was also seized from the possession of the 1st accused. The crime was registered on the basis of the same and later the same was transferred for investigation to the CBCID, SIG III Branch, Kozhikode. Upon conducting further investigation, a final report was submitted and the same was taken into file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna as C.P.No.26 of 2004.

3. Upon completing the legal formalities, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, Manjeri and later it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Court, Manjeri for trial and disposal. Subsequently, the same was withdrawn as per order No.A2-5064/02 dated 22.10.2005 and made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III (Adhoc), Manjeri, where it was tried as S.C.No.479 of 2004.

4. In support of the prosecution case, seven witnesses were examined, fifteen exhibits were marked and one material object was identified from the side of the prosecution. The contradiction in the statements of PW2 and PW4 were marked as Exts.D1 and D2. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating materials brought out during the course of trial were put to them. Both of them denied the same and pleaded innocence. No defence evidence was adduced.

5. After examining the materials placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/1st accused guilty of the offence, whereas the 2nd accused was acquitted of all the charges. Consequently, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 489 B IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with default sentence of six months for the offences punishable under Section 489 C IPC. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence.

6. As there was no appearance for the appellant, Adv.Sanjana Rachel Jose was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court and I heard her. Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the State. 7. The learned Amicus Curiae contended that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are not legally sustainable. According to her, the procedure adopted by the investigating agency was faulty and it created serious lacuna in the prosecution. It is pointed out that, even though the arrest was allegedly made from the place of occurrence, which was the premise