Madras High Court
S.Sermakani vs The Inspector Of Police on 29 March, 2023
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.7367 of 2021
1.Crl.A(MD)No.319 of 2007:-
S.Sermakani ... Appellant/Accused No.3
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
C.B.C.I.D,
Madurai.
(In Crime No.1 of 2000) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call
for the records in S.C.No.389 of 2006, dated 29.06.2007 passed by
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No.III, Madurai and to set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
2.Crl.A(MD)No.383 of 2007:-
Karuppasamy ... Appellant/Accused No.1
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
C.B.C.I.D Police (CC Wing),
Madurai.
(In Crime No.1 of 2000) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call
for the records in S.C.No.389 of 2006, dated 29.06.2007 passed by
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No.III, Madurai and to set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Saravanan
(No appearance)
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Criminal Appeals have been filed to set aside the
order passed in S.C.No.389 of 2006, dated 29.06.2007 on the file of
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No.III, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
2.The case of the prosecution is that based on a tip-off,
Accused No.1/Karuppasamy was arrested in front of the
Government Bus depot at K.K.Nagar, Madurai, for possession of
Fake Indian Currencies of 21 numbers in the denomination of
Rs.100 and Fake American Dollars 2 numbers in the denomination
of 100 dollars on 15.03.2000 at 16.00 hours and a case in Crime
No.1 of 2000 under Sections 489(B) to 489(C) of I.P.C was
registered on the file of the respondent on 15.03.2000 at 19.00
hours. Subsequently, Accused No.2/Narayanan @ Narayanaraja was
arrested by the Investigating Officer near Arun Lodge, Srivilliputhur
Road, Sivakasi for possession of i) a sheet of 18 steps which were
printed in front and back of the American 100 dollars totally 64
sheets, ii) 23 bundles of counterfeit American 100 dollars each
bundle consisted of 100 dollar notes, iii) 4 bundles of counterfeit
American 100 dollars each bundle consisted of 50 dollar notes and
iv) negative films with various conditions on 04.04.2000 at 18.00
hours and his confession statement was recorded. Based on his
confession, a house search was conducted at the printing press of
Accused No.3/Vijayakumar and 117 Nosin completed counterfeit
American 100 dollars, printing machine and related materials used
for printing were recovered and Accused No.3 was arrested on the
same day on 21.30 hours. During the investigation, on 17.02.2001,
at about 08.00 hours, Accused No.4/Sermakani was arrested near
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
Karpagam Hotel situated in front of Court complex, Madurai for
possession of 260 numbers counterfeit American 100 dollars, the
serial numbers were tallied with this case American dollars which
were seized from the other accused. After completion of the
investigation, the final report against Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the
offences punishable under Sections 489(A) to 489(D) and 120B of
I.P.C was filed on 30.06.2001 before the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Madurai and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.22 of 2004
on 18.08.2004. Accused No.2/Narayanan @ Narayanaraja died on
28.10.2005 and the charges against him were abated during the
trial. Since Accused No.2 died, Accused Nos.3 and 4, namely,
Vijayakumar and Sermakani, were arraigned as Accused Nos.2 and
3. The case was committed to the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai in S.C.No.389 of
2006 on 18.12.2006.
3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution
had examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.30 and also
produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.11 and on the side of the
accused, no one was examined and no exhibits were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court convicted the accused as follows:-
(i) Accused Nos.1 and 2/Karuppasamy and Vijayakumar
for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) r/w 489(A)(C) and
(D) of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo five years Rigorous
Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default, he
shall undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment;
(ii) Accused No.2/Vijayakumar for the offence
punishable under Section 489(A) of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo
five years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/-
and in default, he shall undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment;
(iii) Accused Nos.1 and 2/Karuppasamy and
Vijayakumar for the offence punishable under Section 489(C) of
I.P.C and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment
and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, he shall undergo
three months Rigorous Imprisonment;
(iv) Accused No.2/Vijayakumar for the offence
punishable under Section 489(D) of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.
5,000/- and in default, he shall undergo six months Rigorous
Imprisonment; and
(v) Accused No.3/S.Sermakani for the offence
punishable under Section 489(B) of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo
five years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/-
and in default, he shall undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment.
The trial Court also ordered to set off the remand period under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C in S.C.No.389 of 2006 on 29.06.2007.
5.Aggrieved by the same, each accused filed separate
appeals before this Court. This Court already heard the appeal in
Crl.A(MD)No.299 of 2007 filed by Accused No.2/J.Vijayakumar and
dismissed the same by Judgment, dated 27.10.2018. In fact,
aggrieved by the same, the second accused preferred an appeal
before the Honourable Supreme Court of India in S.L.P (Criminal)
Diary No.36275 of 2019 in I.A.Nos.44172, 44175, 44176 and 44177
of 2020 and the same were dismissed, by order, dated 09.03.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
6.The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Accused No.3 in Crl.A(MD)No.319 of 2007 would submit
that no witnesses had spoken about the recovery from Accused
No.3 and there was no incriminating evidence to convict Accused
No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 489(B) of I.P.C. The
arrest of Accused No.3 and recovery of counterfeit U.S dollars are
not proved by any evidence. Regarding the place of arrest and
recovery are totally contradictory between P.W.1 and P.W.4. As per
the seizure mahazar, which was marked as Ex.P.29, Accused No.3
was arrested and seizure was effected near Karpagam Hotel which
is situated in front of the Madurai District Court campus. Whereas
P.W.1 and P.W.4 had deposed that the arrest of the appellant,
recording his confession statement, seizure of counterfeit U.S
dollars and preparation of seizure mahazar everything was effected
by P.W.7, who is the Investigating Officer, in a lane adjacent to the
Karpagam Hotel. That apart, P.W.7 deposed that the arrest, seizure,
recording of confession at the junction of Karpagam Hotel and lane
which is on the main road. This major infirmity in the evidence of
P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.7 as to the place of arrest and recovery
renders the evidence of those witnesses unreliable and the
prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
7.The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Accused No.3 in Crl.A(MD)No.319 of 2007 would further
submit that P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.7 admitted that the place of arrest
and recovery is in District place which Madurai District Court, Hotels,
Hospitals and Petrol Bulk etc surround. While being so, instead of
taking any effort to prefer any independent witness from the locality
P.W.7 had chosen P.W.1 and P.W.4, who are Assistants to the Village
Administrative Officers respectively. Therefore, they are interested
witnesses to the prosecution. In fact, they also admitted that they
used to stand as witnesses in favour of the respondent in the past,
which clearly manifest their intimacy with the respondent. He
further submitted that the dates recorded under the signatures of
P.W.1 and P.W.4 in the confession and seizure mahazars are
corrected from 16.02.2001 to 17.02.2001. While cross-examination
of P.W.7, it was not answered about the material alteration. It
revealed that it was not an incidental one, but an intentional one.
Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove even the arrest and the
recovery from Accused No.3.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Accused No.3 in Crl.A(MD)No.319 of 2007 would further
submit that only on the confession statement of the deceased
accused Narayanan @ Narayanaraj, who was originally arraigned as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
Accused No.2 in the F.I.R, Shanmugam and Shankar @ Jagadeesan
were cited as the kingpins of the entire commission of the offence.
But the Investigating Officer has not even chosen to array them as
an accused. The prosecution also did not explain properly. Except
the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, there is absolutely no other
material or oral evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to
connect Accused No.3 with other accused persons.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Accused No.3 in Crl.A(MD)No.319 of 2007 would further
submit that so far appellant/Accused No.3 is in prison and
incarcerated for the past 3-1/2 years.
10.On a perusal of the materials available on record
revealed that serial numbers of counterfeit US dollars are
continuous one with the counterfeit US Dollar recovered from other
accused persons. P.W.1 and P.W.4 categorically stated about the
arrest, seizure mahazar and confession statement of the appellant.
Though there was a slight contradiction, it would affect the case of
the prosecution since recovery and arrest were categorically proved
by the prosecution. The Village Assistant was examined as P.W.1
and he was on duty on 15.03.2000 at his office. Thereafter, P.W.1
and P.W.4 along with the Investigating Officer had taken the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
informer and went to the Tamil Nadu State Express Bus Transport
Corporation at Madurai, where the informer identified the first
accused and he was in possession of counterfeit currency when
P.W.7 enquired him and recorded his confession statement infront of
P.W.1 and P.W.4. During the arrest, the first accused was in
possession of 21 numbers of counterfeit Indian 100 rupees
currencies, which was marked as M.O.1 series and two numbers of
counterfeit American 100 Dollars, which was marked as M.O.2
series. These counterfeit currencies were seized by P.W.7 under
seizure mahazar, which was marked as Ex.P.1.
11.In respect of arrest place, P.W.1 had deposed that
the first accused was arrested in front of TNSTC Depot at K.K Nagar
Bus stop. In respect of confession and recovery, he had deposed
that the first accused produced 21 numbers of counterfeit Indian
100 rupees currencies and two numbers of counterfeit American
100 dollars. Based on his confession, the deceased second accused
was arrested by P.W.7 and he was in possession of 18 sheets which
were printed in front and back of the American 100 dollars totally 64
sheets, 23 bundles of counterfeit American 100 dollars each bundle
consisted of 100 dollar notes, 4 bundles of counterfeit American 100
dollars each bundle consisted of 50 dollar notes and negative films
with various conditions on 04.04.2000 at about 06.00 p.m. Based
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
on his confession, a search was conducted at the printing press of
Accused No.2/Vijayakumar (earlier Accused No.3) and 117 Nosin
completed American 100 dollars, printing machine and related
materials used for printing were recovered and he was arrested at
about 09.30 p.m. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved its
case as against Accused No.1/Karuppasamy and Accused No.
2/Vijayakumar. In so far as Accused No.2/Vijaykumar is concerned,
this Court, by order, dated 27.10.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by
him in Crl.A(MD)No.299 of 2007 and confirmed the conviction and
sentence imposed by the trial Court.
12.Since the prosecution categorically proved its
case as against Accused No.1/Karuppasamy,
Crl.A(MD)No.383 of 2007 is dismissed and the conviction and
sentence recorded against Accused No.1 by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court
No.III), Madurai, Madurai District in S.T.C.No.389 of 2006
vide Judgment dated 29.06.2007 is confirmed. The trial Court
is directed to secure the appellant/Accused No.1 to undergo the
remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence already
undergone by the accused is given set off under Section 428 of
Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
13.In so far as the appellant/Accused No.3/S.Sermakani
is concerned, he is still incarceration for the past 3-1/2 years. The
contradictions found between P.W.1 and P.W.4 and P.W.7 in so far as
the arrest place, recovery and recording confession statement show
the discrepancies. However the serial numbers of counterfeit US
dollar are continuous one with the counterfeit US Dollar recovered
from other accused persons. However, there is no evidence to show
that the appellant/Accused No.3 was indulging in using, selling or
buying or receiving or otherwise trafficking or using forged or
counterfeit currency. Mere possession of counterfeit currency notes
is not sufficient for conviction of the accused under Section 489B of
I.P.C.
14.Considering all the relevant facts and attending
circumstances as well as the aforementioned proposition of law, it
appears that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of
imprisonment of 5 years awarded by the trial Court be reduced to
the period already undergone by the appellant/Accused No.3 is
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
15.In view of the above, the conviction imposed by the
Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 489(B) is
confirmed, and the sentence imposed by the Courts below is hereby
modified to the period which was already undergone by the
appellant/Accused No.3/S.Sermakani. Accordingly, Crl.A(MD)No.
319 of 2007 is partly allowed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court,
Fast Track Court No.III,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
C.B.C.I.D,
Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
CRL.A.(MD).Nos.319 & 383 of 2007
29.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
