ABDUL MAJEED Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.944 of 2005, on the files of Additional Sessions Judge (ADHOC) Fast Track Court No. I, Thrissur. The conviction is under Section 489 C of IPC and sentence imposed is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) The facts necessary for consideration of this appeal is as follows:

(3.) When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before this Court that the whole case presented by the prosecution is unbelievable and under a shadow. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that, even though, the prosecution got a case that an information was received from a hotel, neither the owner of the hotel, nor any material produced to substantiate the case that, it was actually a seizure from a place namely Choondalath hotel. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that apart from PW1 and PW5, both official witnesses, no witnesses supported the prosecution case. Even though, the prosecution got a case that, he was trafficking note after consuming food from the above referred Choondalath hotel, there was nothing before the court regarding the note allegedly passed by the appellant herein to the owner of the said hotel. It was clear whether the said note was recovered by the police, either from the appellant herein or from the owner of the said hotel. A statement was seen produced before the court that the appellant kept fake notes in his house and on such an information, a recovery of 100 notes were made. But the prosecution even produced a plan or a scene mahazar of the place, from wherein it was recovered. It was alleged that it was recovered from a kalapura and the prosecution alone knows what they meant by such a kalapura, whether it was a house or a room attached to the house, it is clear. When the scene mahazar was therein or a plan was produced before the court to appreciate the place from where it was recovered. The defence was actually handicapped to show whether the alleged place was a place accessible for others or even to public. If the recovery was from a place, having exclusive possession of the appellant herein, no evidenciary value can be attached to such a recovery. The further argument advanced by the learned Counsel is that the descriptions of the notes will show that it will come under the purview of the definitions given for counterfeit notes under Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code. If the notes are coming under the purview of Section 28 of IPC, it can be only said that, the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offence.