RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 489(C) IPC in S.C. No. 447/2005 of the Court of Session, Thrissur. He faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Thrissur on the allegation that at about noon on 7.1.2002 at the Sakthan Thampuran bus stand at Thrissur, he was found possessing three counterfeit currencies of Rs. 100/- denomination, and one counterfeit currency of Rs. 50/- denomination. The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrissur East. He arrested the accused, and seized the counterfeit currencies as per a mahazar. On the basis of the arrest and seizure, he registered the crime, and investigation was taken over by the CBCID. After investigation, the CBCID submitted final report in court.

(2.) The accused appeared before the learned trial Judge, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. The prosecution examined four witnesses, and proved Exts. P1 to P10 documents in the trial court. The MO1 and MO2 properties were also identified during trial. These are the counterfeit currency notes seized from the possession of the accused. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence of total denial. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 26.6.2007, the accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no reason for interference in the findings of the trial court, or the conviction made by the trial court under Section 489(C) IPC. Of the four witnesses examined in the trial court, P.W. 2 is the Sub Inspector, who detected the offence, and P.W. 1 is an independent witness, who witnessed the arrest of the accused, and the seizure of counterfeit currencies. This witness identified his signature in the mahazar, and he also fully supported the prosecution. P.W. 4 is the police officer, who partly investigated the case, and P.W. 3 is the Inspector of CBCID, who further investigated the case, and submitted final report in court. There is nothing to show that there was any flaw, or irregularity, or illegality in the investigation conducted by P.W. 4.