Telangana High Court

Perumandla Tirupathi Goud, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 November, 2022

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1959 of 2006 and 201 of 2007

COMMON ORDER :

     Since both these Criminal Revision Cases arise out of the same

judgment, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by

this common order.


2.   Crl.R.C.No.1959 of 2006 is filed by the petitioners/A3 and A4

and Crl.R.C.No.201 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner/A1, challenging

the judgment, dated 17.11.2006, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.25

and 26 of 2005 by the II Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal,

whereby, the judgment, dated 09.03.2005, passed in S.C.No.665 of

2003 by the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal,

convicting the petitioners/A1, A3 and A4 of the offence under Section

489-A IPC, 489-C IPC and 489-D IPC and sentencing them to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to

pay fine of Rs.500/- each under each count, in default, to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for one month each under each count, was

confirmed.


3.   I have heard the submissions of Sri A.Dattanand, learned

counsel for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1959 of 2006, Sri Naraparaju

Avinash, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.201 of 2007

and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the
                                       2                     Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
                                                Crl.R.C.Nos.1959 of 2006&201 of 2007


respondent/State in both these Criminal Revision Cases.                    I have

perused the record.

4. For convenience of discussion, the parties would be hereinafter

referred as per their array before the trial Court.

5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.05.2003 the

complainant Md.Qamruddin, S.I. of Police, Matwada (LW.1) along

with other Police Personnal namely, H.C.No.843 and Police

Constables 1063, 2703, 1031 and 732 (LWs.2 to 4) was conducting

vehicles check near Mulugu Cross road, Warangal. At about 09.00

A.M. Accused Nos.1 to 4 came in one Maruthi Van bearing No.AP 15

8600. On suspicion they were stopped and the van was checked.

The said Sub Inspector of Police interrogated Accused Nos.1 to 4 in

the presence of two panchas R.Sambaiah and P.Sharath (LWs.7

and 8) individually and separately. Accused Nos.1 to 4 revealed their

names and confessed that they prepared counterfeit currency notes

through a printer and brought the currency notes for exchange in

market in Warangal. In pursuance of confession of Accused Nos.1 to

4, one bundle of rupees one thousand denomination counterfeit

currency (Xerox) notes and one printer and said van from the

possession of Accused No.1, one hundred fake notes 108 in number

from the possession of Accused No.2, 72 fake notes of rupees one

thousand from the possession of Accused No.3 and 38 fake notes of 3 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.Nos.1959 of 2006&201 of 2007

rupees one thousand from the possession of Accused No.4 were

seized under panchanama before said panchas. Accused No.1 also

confessed that he gave three fake notes of Rs.50/- and three fake

notes of Rs.100/- to Accused No.6.

Later the said Sub Inspector of Police returned to P.S. Matwada

and lodged a report before Station House Officer, Matwada and

handed over the accused and said property for further action.

Thereupon, a case was registered by Head Constable 1190 (LW.11).

Further investigation was taken up by Circle Inspector of Police,

C.C.S. Warangal (LW-12). The Circle Inspector of Police has effected

the arrest of Accused Nos.1 to 4, examined the witnesses and sent

Accused Nos.1 to 4 to Court for judicial custody. On 02.06.2003

Accused Nos.5 and 6 were arrested in Cr.No.119 of 2002 under

Section 394 IPC of Intezargunj P.S. In pursuance of their confession

recorded in the presence of A.Srinivas and K.Chandramouli (LWs.9

and 10), 17 fake notes of Rs. 1,000/- denomination from Accused

No.5 and 24 fake notes of Rs.100/- denomination from possession of

Accused No.6 were seized. Later Accused Nos.5 and 6 were

remanded to judicial custody in this case on P.T. Warrants. The

seized counterfeit notes were sent to F.S.L. through the Court. The

Assistant Director, F.S.L., Hyderabad examined the notes and opined

that item Nos.1 to 3 are counterfeit notes of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.100/-

and Rs.50/- vide is report dated 24.06.2003 and item Nos.1 and 2 4 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.Nos.1959 of 2006&201 of 2007

are counterfeit notes of rupees one thousand and rupees hundred

notes vide another report, dated 04.07.2003. Hence, the charge.

6. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against A1 to A6 for

the offence punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-C and 489-D IPC.

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1

to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 and M.Os.1 to 8. On behalf of

the accused, no evidence, either oral or documentary, has been

adduced.

7. The trial Court, after analysing the entire evidence on record,

while acquitting A5 and A6 of the offence punishable under Sections

489-A, 489-C and 489-D IPC, found A1, A3 and A4 guilty of the said

offences and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated

supra. Aggrieved thereby, A1, A3 and A4 preferred the subject

Criminal Appeal Nos.25 of 2005 and 26 of 2005 before the Court

below. The Court below, after re-appreciating the entire material

available on record, dismissed the appeal, by confirming the

judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, A1, A3

and A4 preferred both these Criminal Revision Cases. Since A2

jumped the bail, the case against A2 was separated and numbered

as S.C.No.68 of 2005 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,

Warangal. A1, A3 to A6 have faced the trial before the trial Court.

5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.Nos.1959 of 2006&201 of 2007

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A1, A3 and A4 would

submit that both the Courts below erred in properly appreciating the

evidence on record and erred in disallowing the plea taken by

petitioners as to how the vehicle involved in the crime would prove

their involvement in the subject offence. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the Courts below ought not to have

formulated a view that existence of a Xerox machine as material

object would make liable the petitioners to be tried for the offences

complained and the conviction under this case solely rest on extra

judicial confessions which are in admissible in evidence, over looking

that fact which is axiomatic in this case court of appeal hackenedly

confirms it. Learned counsel for the petitioners further would submit

that the courts below ought to have extended benefit of doubt to

petitioners and discharged them, as witnesses never chose to speak

anything against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the courts below ought to have seen that except the

police officials PWs.1, 2, 7 and 8 the independent panch witnesses

PWs.3 to 6 did not state anything supporting the case of prosecution,

therefore relying on the testimony of the police officials is not safe

and proper. It is further submitted that the Courts below ought to

have seen that the panchanamas Exs.P1 to P4 relating to Accused

No.1 did not contain signatures of the Accused No.1, if the accused

No.1 was arrested and property as alleged was seized from him, PW1 6 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.Nos.1959 of 2006&201 of 2007

ought to have obtained their signatures on confession and recovery

panchanamas relating to the accused No.1. Both the Courts below

ought to have appreciated that when no signatures of the accused

No.1 were taken on his panchanamas and confession, no credibility is

to be given to those exhibits and that since no signatures of the

Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were contained on Ex.P1, P3 and P4, the

case of the prosecution ought to have been discarded. Both the

Courts below erroneously convicted the petitioners/A1, A3 and A4 of

the offence alleged against them. It is a fit case to extend benefit of

doubt to the petitioners/A1, A3 and A4 and acquit them of the

offence alleged against them and ultimately prayed to allow the

Criminal Revision Cases as prayed for.

9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

supported the judgments impugned in these Criminal Revision Cases

and contended that there are no circumstances to interfere with the

impugned judgment. There are no procedural irregularities in

launching prosecution against the petitioners/A1, A3 and A4. The

evidence placed on record clinchingly proves the guilt of the

petitioners/A1, A3 and A4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offences alleged against them. Hence, the trial Court was justified in

convicting and sentencing the petitioners/A1, A3 and A4, which was

rightly confirmed by the Court below. Both these Criminal Revision 7 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.Nos.1959 of 2006&201 of 2007

Cases are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed and

ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Cases.

10. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for

determination in these two Criminal Revision Cases is as follows:

"Whether the impugned judgment, dated 17.11.2006, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.25 of 2005 and 26 of 2005 by the II Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal, convicting and sentencing the petitioners/A1, A3 and A4 of the offence under Section 489-A IPC, 489-C IPC and 489-D IPC is legally sustainable?"

POINT:-

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to Sections

489-A, C and D, which reads as under:-

"489A- Counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes: Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currency note or bank note 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.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section and of sections 489B, 489C, 489D and 489E the expression 'bank note' means a promissory note or engagement for the payment of money to bearer on demand issued by any person carrying on the business of banking in any of the world, or issued by or under the authority of any State or Sovereign Power, and intended to be used as equivalent to, or as a substitute for money.

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 8 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.Nos.1959 of 2006&201 of 2007

either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both.

489D- Making or possessing instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes- Whoever makes, or performs, any part of the process of making, or buys or sells or disposes of, or has in his possession any machinery, instrument or material for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for forging or counterfeiting any currency note or bank note, 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.

The expression 'counterfeit' is defined in Section 28 IPC. The same reads as follows:

"28-Counterfeit: A person is said to 'counterfeit' who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intended by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced.

Explanation 1: It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact.

Explanation 2: When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing, and the resemblance is that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practice deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practiced."

Sections 489 A to 489 E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. The object of legislature in enacting these provisions is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency notes and bank notes.

Section 489-A not only deals with complete act of counterfeiting but also covers the case where the accused performs any part of the process of counterfeiting. Therefore, if the material shows that the accused knowingly performed any part of the process of counterfeiting, Section 489A becomes applicable.

Similarly Section 489 B relates to using as genuine forged or counterfeited currency notes or bank notes. The object of Legislature in enacting this section is to stop the circulation of forged notes by 9 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.Nos.1959 of 2006&201 of 2007

punishing all persons who knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged do any act which could lead to their circulation.

Section 489C dealt with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeited currency notes or bank notes punishable. Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeited notes are necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Section 489 C and 489 D.

11. On perusal of the material available on record, only basing on

the evidence of police officials who were cited as PWs.1, 2, 7 and 8,

all the other independent panch witnesses, who are crucial to support

the case of the prosecution have turned hostile and did not support

the case of the prosecution. PW6, who is the independent panch

witness, stated that he was called by the police to act as a witness

for handing over gold ornaments to one Kumara Swamy which were

recovered by the police after theft and he further stated that the

police obtained his signatures on white papers and PWs.3 and 4, who

have turned hostile, also deposed that the police have taken their

signatures on white papers and further stated that they have not

signed on Ex.P1 to P9 and further the prosecution failed to examine