[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shankar Reddy vs State By J.J. Nagara Police Station on 20 January, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.91 of 2015
c/w CRL.A No.1120 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.91 OF 2015
c/w
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1120 OF 2014
IN CRL.A. NO.91/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SHANKAR REDDY
SON OF LATE NARASIMHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT GAYATHRI COMPLEX,
BESIDE SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE,
HEBBALA, BANGALORE-560024.
2. NAGARAJA
SON OF KRISHNAM RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.189, 6TH CROSS,
MEDAHALLI, SONNENAHALLI,
K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE -560036.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C. N. RAJU, ADV. FOR
SRI. SUDHAKAR REDDY G. S., ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY J.J. NAGARA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE - 560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY KUM. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL SPP.)
-2-
CRL.A No.91 of 2015
c/w CRL.A No.1120 of 2014
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV.,
FOR THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 3 PRAYS TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED:05.12.2014 IN S.C.NO.575/2011, PASSED
BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV,
BANGALORE CONVICTING THE APPEALLANT FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 489(B), 489(C) R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
IN CRL.A. NO.1120/2014
BETWEEN:
JAGADISHA
S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/A NO.2981,
SHANTHA PRIYA LAYOUT,
BEGUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-56008.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIREESHA J. T., ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
JAGAJEEVANARAM P.S
BANGALORE-560027.
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY KUM. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL SPP.)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV.,
FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED:5.12.14 PASSED BY THE P.O.,FTC-IV,
BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.575/11 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489(B) AND
489(C) R/W 34 OF IPC.
-3-
CRL.A No.91 of 2015
c/w CRL.A No.1120 of 2014
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
These appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence dated 05th December, 2014 passed in SC
No.565 of 2011 by the Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru City (for
short "the trial Court").
2. The parties herein are referred to as per their rank
and status before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru submitted the charge sheet against the accused for
the offence punishable under Sections 489B and 489C read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the
prosecution that on 28th January, 2011 at about 03.30 pm in
front of Tea stall situate at Hosahalli Main Road, 11th Cross,
Padarayanapura, Bengaluru, in furtherance of their common
intention, accused 1 to 3 trafficked and circulated counterfeit
currency notes 111 in number of face value of ₹1,000/- each,
knowing and having reason to believe the same are forged and
counterfeited, and intended to use the same as genuine. Thus
the accused committed offence punishable under Section 489B
and 489C read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered in CC
No.13724 of 2011. Thereafter, case was registered in SC
No.575 of 2011. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court
framed charges against the accused for the alleged commission
of offences under Sections 489B and 489C read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code. Same were read over and explained to
the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the guilt of
the accused, in all, seven witnesses were examined as PWs1 to
7 and marked twelve documents as Exhibits P1 to P12 as well
as seven material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 7. On
closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused
under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded.
Accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence
evidence on their behalf. Having heard the arguments on both
sides, the trial court has convicted the accused for the offence
under Sections 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code and passed the sentence to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/-
each, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence, appellants have preferred these appeals.
5. Sri C.N. Raju, learned counsel for the appellants
would submit that without registration of First Information
Report, recovery mahazar was conducted which is not
sustainable under law. Both panch witnesses PW4 and PW6,
have turned hostile. Other witnesses are the official and
interested witnesses. Without supporting evidence of
independent witnesses, the trial Court has convicted the
accused, which is not sustainable under law. Further, he would
submit that absolutely there are no materials to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 489B of Indian Penal Code.
The accusation made in the charge sheet and evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, reveals that only allegation against the
accused is for the offence punishable under Section 489C of
Indian Penal Code, which is punishable up to seven years or
with fine or with both. In the case on hand, all the accused
have already undergone judicial custody for a period of one
year. The accused arrested on 29th January, 2011 and released
on 13th January, 2012. Hence, if this Court comes to
conclusion that the accused have committed the offence
punishable under Section 489C of Indian Penal Code, then this
Court may set off the period of detention already undergone by
the accused in judicial custody and close the appeal.
6. As against this, Kum. Asma Kouser, learned
Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State, would submit that there are sufficient
materials to constitute the alleged offence and accordingly,
sought for dismissal of appeals.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
following points would arise for my consideration.
1. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting
the appellants/accused for the offence under
Section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal
Code?
2. Whether the appellants/accused are entitled for
modification of sentence?
3. What order?
Regarding Point No.1:
8. I have perused the material placed before this
Court. Police Officer-T. Kodandarama, deposed that on 28th
January, 2011, he being the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Bengaluru West, after completion of meeting, when he was
coming back, at about 03.00 pm, some informants came and
informed him that three persons are coming from Vijayanagara
in an auto along with counterfeit notes to be taken to
Kalasipalya for circulation. Immediately, PW1 informed Sub-
Inspector of Police, Anjanappa-CW10, and along with
Constables CW4 and CW7 went near the Tea Stall on 11th cross,
Hosahalli Main Road, wherein PW1 asked CW2 and CW3 viz.
Nawab and Sadiq, to come as panch witnesses and thereafter,
PW1 at about 03.30 pm along with police staff, checked the
autorickshaw passing through the said road. At 03.30 pm, the
informant shown one autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-
05/AA-1448 which was coming through the said road and told
PW1 that in the said autorickshaw, the persons are travelling
with counterfeit notes. PW1, along with other police staff and
panchas, surrounded the said autorickshaw and noticed two
persons sitting in the back seat. PW1 enquired them. One
person told his name as Shankar Reddy and thereafter, police
enquired about what is in the auto. The inmates of
autorickshaw, in a suspicious manner, avoided to answer the
question and thereafter, when were asked again, they told that
they were taking counterfeit notes for circulation. Thereafter,
PW1 along with the staff made personal search on Shankar
Reddy the inmate of the autorickshaw and seized 60 notes of
Rs.1,000/- denomination from his right side pant pocket.
Those notes appeared to be counterfeit notes, of which, 43
notes bearing same numbers 3BF 309066 and 17 notes bearing
No.3BF 309067. Thereafter, the body of Jaagdish was also
searched and seized 30 notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination with
numbers 484BE30 which were also counterfeit notes and from
Nagaraj 21 notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination were seized. Out
of 21 notes, 18 notes were having same numbers (3BF
309068) and other 3 notes were of different numbers. All the
said notes were seized in the presence of panchas, CW2-Nawab
and CW3-Sadiq and the notes seized from Shankar Reddy,
Jagadish and Nagaraj were sealed in three different covers.
Thereafter, all the three were apprehended and taken to police
station along with counterfeit notes. PW1 himself filed the
complaint and registered the case in Crime No.24 of 2011 for
the offence punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of Indian
Penal Code and submitted the FIR to the Court as well as
copies to the higher officer. Regarding the notes which were
seized in the presence of panchas, mahazar was drawn as per
as Exhibit P1.
9. PW2-Venkatesha, Police Constable, is a supporting
witness. He has deposed on the lines of PW1.
10. PW3-Murali N.G., the Deputy Manager, Reserve
Bank of India, Kolkata has deposed that on 23rd February, 2011
the complainant Jagajeevanramnagar Police, brought
counterfeit notes said to have been seized and those notes
were sent to Mysore and PW3 has examined those notes
through special machine and said notes of Rs.1,000/-
denomination, in all 111 in number, were counterfeit notes.
PW3 has given his opinion as per Exhibit P4. He has also
identified the sample seal Exhibit P5.
11. CW2-Sadiq has not supported the case of the
prosecution.
12. PW5-Y.T. Venkatesh, is the Police Constable. He
has deposed in evidence that on 22nd February, 2011 he was
deputed to take the seized counterfeit notes for the purpose of
- 10 -
examination to Reserve Bank of India and accordingly, he
brought the said notes to RBI, Mysore. On 23rd February,
2011, he has given the said notes to the RBI and obtained
acknowledgment. Further, he has deposed that on 18th April,
2011 he was again deputed to RBI for bringing the report.
Accordingly, he had gone to Mysore and brought the report in a
sealed cover.
13. Prosecution has examined PW6-Sadiq, who is an
auto driver said to be one of the panch witnesses to Exhibit P1.
He has deposed that about eleven months back, he was taken
by the police to 11th Cross on Hosahalli Main Road. At that
time, an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-05/AA-1448
came from Hosahalli side and police checked the said auto. In
the said auto, there were three persons and this witness has
identified two persons, who were present at the time of
evidence of this witness. Further, he has deposed that inmates
of the said autorickshaw possessed 111 of Rs.1,000/-
denomination, of which 60 notes, 21 notes and 30 notes were
seized from Shankar Reddy, Jagadish and Nagaraj respectively.
He has further deposed that police suspected the said notes
and seized those notes under mahazar-Exhibit P1 and he has
also put his signature on the mahazar.
- 11 -
14. PW7-Anjanappa, Sub-Inspector of Police, has
deposed as to the investigation conducted by him.
15. On careful examination of the entire evidence on
record, trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence
under Sections 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
16. Before appreciation of the evidence on record, it is
necessary to mention here as to the provisions of Sections
489B and 489C of Indian Penal Code. The same read as under:
"489B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit
currency-notes or bank-notes.--Whoever sells to, or buys
or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics
in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-
note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe
the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished
with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-
notes or bank-notes.--Whoever has in his possession any
forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note,
knowing or having reason to believe the same to be
forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as
genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
- 12 -
term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or
with both."
17. A careful examination of the entire evidence on
record, makes it clear that the accused were in possession of
counterfeit currency notes knowing or having reason to believe
the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the
same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine. On
perusal of the evidence placed before this court, though the
independent witnesses have not supported to the case of the
prosecution, I do not find any material on record to disbelieve
the evidence of the official witnesses who have promptly seized
the counterfeit notes under mahazar and immediately
submitted the report to the court. The learned Sessions Judge
has properly appreciated the evidence on record. Evidence is
recorded in proper perspective and the accused have
committed the alleged offence. Accordingly, prosecution has
proved that the accused have committed the offence
punishable under Section 489C of Indian Penal Code.
18. With regard to the offence under Section 489B of
Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution has not placed
any material as to essential ingredients to constitute offence
- 13 -
under the said Section. The essential ingredients to constitute
the offence under said Section are:
"(i) selling, buying or receiving from any person; or
otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine;
(ii) any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank
note;
(iii) knowing or having reason to believe that such note
as forged or counterfeit."
19. In the case on hand, the prosecution has not placed
any material to show that accused have sold these counterfeit
notes or from whom they have received the same, or trafficked
in, or used the said currency as genuine as currency notes or
Bank notes. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any essential
ingredient to constitute the offence under Section 489B of IPC.
However, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the
offence under Section 489B of IPC, which is not sustainable
under law. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered, partly in the
affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
20. The trial Court has passed sentence that the
accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year each
- 14 -
and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under
Section 489C of Indian Penal Code, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. While passing sentence, the
trial Court has observed that the accused No.1-Shankar Reddy
is aged 48 years and is having wife and daughter; he is an
uneducated person; he has to look after his aged mother.
Accused No.2-Jagadeesha is aged 51 years; is an autorickshaw
driver; is having two daughters who are pursuing studies; he is
suffering with heart problem and he has filed medical
documents. Still he is taking treatment. He has to take
medicine daily and he is also having breathing problem and he
has to use machine. The said machine is placed before the
court and the court has seen the same and entire family
depends on him. Further, it is observed that Accused no.3-
Nagaraja is aged about 43 years and he has studied up to 6th
Standard. He is having wife and two children. The trial Court
has observed that the accused 1 to 3 are uneducated, having
wife and small children and are rustic villagers. It is submitted
by the learned counsel for the appellants that accused were in
judicial custody from 29th January, 2011 till 13th January, 2012.
Accordingly, accused were in judicial custody for a period of 11
months and 14 days. The alleged offence under Section 489B
- 15 -
is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both. The
trial court has imposed the sentence to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the same may be reduced to 11
months 14 days, which is already undergone by the accused in
judicial custody. Accordingly, I answer Point No.2, in the
affirmative.
Regarding Point No.3:
21. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeals are allowed in part;
ii) The judgment of conviction to the accused 1 to
3 under Section 489B read with Sections 34 of
Indian Penal Code is set aside;
iii) Appellants are acquitted of the offences
punishable under Section 489B read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code;
iv) The Judgment of Conviction passed by the trial
Court for the offence under Section 489C r/w 34
IPC is confirmed;
- 16 -
v) The sentence passed by the trial Court for the
offence under Section 489C read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code, is modified as under:
a) The accused 1 to 3 are sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 11 months 14 days, which is
already undergone by the accused
b) With regard to payment of the fine
amount is concerned, the sentence of
the trial Court is left unaltered;
c) The order sheet reveals that the fine
amount is already deposited by the
accused;
d) The period of detention undergone by
the accused shall be given set off
under Section 428 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
vi) Registry to send the copy of this judgment
along with trial court records to the concerned
Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
