GNANSIKHAMONY NADAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gnanamoni Nadar Gnansikhamony Nadar, who was accused No. 6 in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1953 on the file of the Nagercoil Sessions Court, has preferred this appeal against the conviction for commission of offence punishable under S.489B of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years besides a fine of Rs. 600/- imposed upon him in respect therefor. Seven other persons were jointly tried along with the appellant for the commission of similar offences, but they have all been acquitted except accused No. 4. The appeal preferred by accused No. 4 is criminal appeal No. 41. That appeal and the present appeal were heard together. Apart from the contention that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction of either appellant, Sri. T. K. Narayana Pillai (N) learned counsel appearing for the appellants also contended that the trial was bad for misjoinder of charges and persons and that the convictions and sentences had to be set aside on that sole ground. At the conclusion of the hearing we expressed the view that we were inclined to accept the argument with regard to the misjoinder and to set aside the convictions and sentences.

(2.) We have dealt with the question of misjoinder in our judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 41, just pronounced and upholding the defence contention in respect thereof have quashed the convictions and the sentences against accused No. 4 and directed him to be tried afresh. So far as the present appellant is concerned, on a careful examination of the records of the case we are inclined to think that the learned Sessions Judge has based the conviction made on inadmissible evidence than on legal evidence. On a retrial, when the inadmissible portion of the evidence is eschewed, the chances of the appellant being convicted, would appear to us to be remote. The legal evidence on record is for the most part either incredible or tainted and it would be unsafe to found a conviction upon it without independent corroboration. We, therefore, propose to dispose of this appeal on the merits.

(3.) S.489B relates to "using the genuine, forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes". The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for attempting to pass off as genuine one counterfeit currency note of the one hundred rupees' denomination. The case against the appellant was that in May 1951 he purchased one counterfeit note from accused 3 for Rs. 10, that in September of that year he purchased six like notes from accused 2 for Rs. 70 and that out of the seven notes he thus came by, he gave one (M.O. III) to PW 18 in November 1951 to get it changed into genuine notes of smaller denominations. Though the purchases from accused 2 and accused 3 were held not to have been proved, accepting the evidence of PWs 17, 18, 19, 37 and 38 the learned Sessions Judge found the offence under S.489B brought home to the appellant.