Kerala High Court
Maniyan @ Kalla Maniyan vs State Of Kerala on 3 October, 2024
2024:KER:72995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 11TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 139 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.02.2015 IN SC NO.101 OF
2011 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP NO.15 OF 2007 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,NEYYATTINKARA
(CRIME NO.187/CR/CT/2003 OF CBCID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MANIYAN @ KALLA MANIYAN
S/O. DASAYYAN NADAR, THERIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
NELLIMOODU, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADV SRI.G.SUDHEER (kARAKONAM)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY SMT.SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.09.2024, THE COURT ON 03.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:72995
Crl.Appeal No.139 of 2015 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the 1st accused in SC No.101
of 2011 on the file of Additional Sessions Court-II,
Thiruvananthapuram, challenging his conviction and sentence
under Section 489B and 489C of IPC, as per judgment dated
09.02.2015.
2. The prosecution case is that, the appellant/1st accused,
entrusted 139 counterfeit currency notes of hundred rupees
denomination to the 2nd accused and he in turn gave it to PW1,
who was running a brick kiln, towards the value of bricks
purchased for PW4, with the knowledge that those notes were
counterfeit currency.
3. Originally, Crime No.242 of 2003 was registered by
Balaramapuram Police on the basis of the statement given by PW1.
Later, the investigation was taken over by CBCID CFS,
Thiruvananthapuram, where Crime No.187/CR/CT/2003 was
registered. On completing investigation, charge was laid against
accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 489B, 489C read with
2024:KER:72995
Section 34 of IPC.
4. Since the 2nd accused absconded, case against him was
split up at the committal stage itself. 1st accused appeared before
the trial court on committal of the case, and charge was framed
against him under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC, to which, he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. PWs 1 to 7 were
examined, Exts.P1 to P18 were marked and MOs 1 to 5 were
identified.
5. On closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant/
1st accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.p.C. He denied
all the incriminating circumstances brought on record and pleaded
innocence. Exts.D1 and D2 contradictions were marked from his
side.
6. On considering the facts and evidence and on hearing the
rival contentions from either side, the trial court found the
1st accused guilty under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC and he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four
years and fine of Rs.20,000/- with a default sentence of
imprisonment for four months under Section 489B of IPC, and
2024:KER:72995
rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.15,000/- with a
default sentence of imprisonment for two months under Section
489C of IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he has
preferred this appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that, if at
all MOs 1 to 4 currency notes produced by PW1 before
Balaramapuram Police Station were counterfeit currency notes,
there is nothing to show that, it was the appellant who possessed
or handed over the same to PW1, and so his conviction and
sentence under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC are liable to be set
aside.
9. PW1 was running a brick kiln, and his case is that, the
appellant along with PW4 reached his brick kiln on 12.06.2003 and
ordered two lorry loads of bricks, for the house construction of
PW4. An advance amount of Rs.500/- was given by the appellant
and he had agreed to pay the balance amount also to PW1. On the
next day i.e. on 13.06.2003, the first load of bricks was unloaded
2024:KER:72995
near the house of PW4, and then PW4 had given him Rs.1,000/-.
While bringing the second load, on the way, PW1 and the
2nd accused alighted from the lorry, and went to the house of the
appellant at Nellimoodu for collecting the balance amount from
him. The appellant told him to wait for one minute, as the 2nd
accused had to pledge some ornaments to give the money. PW1
went along with the 2nd accused, to Balaramapuram in an
autorickshaw. The 2nd accused went out of the auto, and after
going for some distance, he came back with a packet and handed
over the same to PW1. When he opened the same, 100 rupees
notes were found, but on close scrutiny, it was found to be
counterfeit notes. So, he went to Balaramapuram Police Station
and handed over the notes to Police, and lodged Ext.P1
FI statement. PW4 Vasantha admitted the case of PW1 that, bricks
for her house construction was ordered from the brick kiln of PW1
and she had gone to that brick kiln along with the appellant, and
the appellant had agreed to pay the balance price to PW1. She
was a surety for the appellant in a counterfeit currency case as
deposed by her, and Ext.P3 is the copy of the surety bond executed
2024:KER:72995
by her. PWs 2 and 3, the employees of PW1, deposed about the
counterfeit currency notes handed over by PW1 to Police at
Balaramapuram Police Station.
10. PWs 1 and 4 would say about the presence of a 20 year
old boy when the first load of brick was taken to the house of PW4.
He was said to be present, when PW4 went to the brick kiln of PW1
along with the appellant. While taking the second load also, that
boy was present along with PW1 in the lorry, but on the way, both
of them alighted from the lorry to go to the house of the appellant
to collect the balance money. Neither PW1 nor PW4 was able to
say the name or details of that boy. His connection with the
appellant also could not be stated by them. Though PW1 lodged
the complaint within 1 hour of receiving the counterfeit notes from
that boy, no attempt was seen made by Police to arrest him.
Though the incident was on 13.06.2003, even the appellant was
arrested only on 22.06.2003. PW1 has no case that, it was the
appellant who gave him the cover of counterfeit currency notes.
His definite case is that, the appellant told him that after pledging
ornaments, the amount will be given and the boy was sent along
2024:KER:72995
with him, with the ornaments, and at Balaramapuram that boy got
down from the autorickshaw and went somewhere. After about
two minutes, he came back with a cover and handed it over to PW1
while he was sitting in the autorickshaw.
11. According to prosecution, the boy who handed over the
cover was made the 2nd accused in the final report. The report
appended to the final report will show that, the 2nd accused was
undergoing remand in Crime No.213 of 2003 of Kanjiramkulam
Police Station under Section 366A of IPC and as per production
warrant, he was produced before the Magistrate court on
27.10.2003 and he was formally arrested, and remanded to judicial
custody in this case also. Though the 2nd accused was arrested for
this case, no request was seen made by the investigating officer, to
get him under Police custody for the purpose of investigation or to
get him identified by the witnesses. Since it was the 2nd accused
who handed over the packet of counterfeit currency to PW1, it was
all the more necessary to find out the source from where he
received those notes, or to find out whether that cover was
received by him from the appellant himself. No such evidence is
2024:KER:72995
forthcoming to connect the appellant with the counterfeit currency
allegedly handed over by the 2nd accused to PW1.
12. PW1 admitted before court that when the 2nd accused
was sent along with him, from the house of appellant, he had not
seen any packets or ornaments entrusted with him by the
appellant. He has no case that when the 2nd accused handed over
the packet of counterfeit currency, the 1st accused was present
anywhere near. It is not clear whether the 2nd accused pledged any
gold ornaments or received money from someone. There is
nothing to show that the packet of counterfeit currency was
handed over to the 2nd accused by the appellant or by somebody
else, under the instruction of the appellant. No investigation was
seen done in that line, to prove the involvement of the appellant in
the alleged crime.
13. The report of the investigating officer appended to the
charge will further show that, confession statement of the 2nd
accused was recorded at jail in the presence of the Jail
Superintendent, after taking orders from the court. That
confession statement is not seen produced before court, and there
2024:KER:72995
is nothing to show that the 2nd accused had confessed anything to
bring out the involvement of himself or of the appellant in the
above crime. If he had confessed that, he handed over the packet
of counterfeit currency to PW1 as instructed by the appellant, then
also the investigating officer should have collected materials to
prove the link. As far as the appellant is concerned, there is
nothing to show that he possessed the counterfeit currency or used
it as genuine. There is nothing to show that it was he who handed
over the counterfeit currency to PW1 or even to the 2nd accused.
14. PW4 admitted that, she was a surety to the appellant, in
a counterfeit currency case before Punalur CJM. But that cannot be
a ground to find that the appellant has committed the offences
alleged in this case also, without clear and cogent evidence to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
15. Without taking into account these material aspects, the
trial court convicted the appellant under Section 489B and 489C of
IPC stating that, it is a very serious offence which will adversely
affect the economy of our nation. True that, manufacture,
possession and use of counterfeit currency will definitely affect the
2024:KER:72995
economy of our nation. But, before convicting an accused for such
an offence, the court has to see that the prosecution succeeded in
proving his guilt beyond any shadow of doubt.
16. In the case on hand, there is nothing to connect the
appellant with the alleged offences, except the remote probability
that since the appellant had agreed to pay the price of bricks to
PW1, he might have given that amount, through the 2nd accused,
by way of counterfeit currency notes. No evidence is forthcoming
to connect the appellant with the packet of counterfeit currency
allegedly handed over by the 2nd accused. His possession or use of
counterfeit currency, could not be proved by prosecution. So, this
Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed on
the appellant by the trial court under Section 489B and 489C of
IPC are liable to be set aside.
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the
conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 489B and
489C of IPC and he is acquitted thereunder. His bail bond also will
stand cancelled.
Earlier as the appellant and his counsel were continuously
2024:KER:72995
absent, this Court, as per order dated 03.04.2024, had forfeited
the bond executed by him at the time of suspending the sentence,
and the trial court was directed to take steps for executing the
sentence. Accordingly, the trial court issued non-bailable warrant
against him and he was arrested on 24.06.2024 and was sent to
jail in execution of the sentence. Now, he is in Central Prison and
Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram as reported by the
Superintendent of that Jail. Since the appeal is allowed setting
aside his conviction and sentence, he shall be set at liberty
forthwith and registry is directed to communicate this order to the
Superintendent of Central Prison and Correctional Home,
Thiruvananthapuram, so as to release him with immediate effect, if
his detention is not needed, in connection with any other case.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
smp
