O R D E R

This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking in order to set aside the order in Crmp No.144 of 2021, dated 22/04/2022 passed by the II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that A1 and A2 tried to deposit counterfeit currency notes, on 15/07/2017 around 12.30 pm in the South Indian Bank, Madurai branch. They were apprehended in the spot itself. On the basis of the confession statement given A2, the involvement of A3 came to light. During the course of investigation, A3 who is the petitioner herein was arrested, on 16/12/2017. After completing the formalities of investigation, final report was filed before the committal court and after committal process was over, now the trial process has been undertaken by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.

3.Pending the above said trial process, petition has been filed in Crmp No.144 of 2021 by this petitioner seeking discharge from the prosecution. That was dismissed on 22/04/2022. Against which, this criminal revision has been filed.

4.Heard both sides.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would heavily rely upon the fact that absolutely, no material has been collected or recovered from this petitioner and only on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused, he has been arrayed as an accused, which according to him, is not permissible in law.

6.Entire CD file has been called for and perused.

From the perusal of the CD file, it came to light that a xerox machine was used by the petitioner, which was sold to PW22 and PW24. On the basis of the statement of the above said witnesses, his involvement has also came to light, apart from the statement of the co-accused. But whether the above said xerox machine was used by this petitioner for the purpose of preparing the counterfeit currency notes is a matter for consideration during the trial process.

7.But the above said xerox machine was not recovered from any one, whether this affects the prosecution case and whether this petitioner can take advantage of the same are all the matters for consideration during trial.

8.This is a case of preparing and circulating the counterfeit currency notes, which eventually affects the economy of the country. The offence of this nature requires thorough enquiry.

9.As stated above, any material is available in the statement of the witnesses namely PW22 and PW24. As rightly observed by the trial court, this petitioner has been roped into the above said offence under section 34 IPC. Whether section 34 IPC is attracted or not is a matter for evidence. The statement of the witnesses Nos.

22 and 24 are also available against this petitioner.

10.Now let us go to the judgment cited by the petitioner.

11.Before that, in the counter statement that has been filed by the prosecution, it has been stated that the petitioner served as Accountant in the Bar Council of Kerala and there is a charge to the effect that he misappropriated the fund namely Advocates Welfare fund Stamps, which were entrusted to him and Vigilance enquiry was also undertaken. He was also placed under suspension. According to the prosecution, the petitioner is not having good conduct of reputation.

12.Now whatever it may be, we shall not be carried away by the conduct. Even in the grounds of revision, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Mahabir Mandal and others Vs. The State of Bihar (AIR 1972 SC 1331) has been mentioned, wherein it has been mentioned that the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C can be used only for the purpose of corroborating under section 162 Cr.P.C. By pointing out this judgment, it has been contended that on the basis of the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the witnesses, no charge can be framed. So this judgment is also cited for the purpose of argument that the statement of the co-

accused cannot be taken into account.

13.But at the same time, framing of charges and the sta