S CHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner/second accused in S.C.No. 46 of 1996 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge Srivilliputtur has preferred the revision aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1997 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge Srivilliputtur confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Section 489(c) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.

(2.) The case is brief in as follows:- It is the case of the prosecution that on 27-9-1995, the revision petitioner was found in possession of five counterfeit hundred rupees notes and they were seized by P.W. 5 under the cover of the mahazar, and the revision petitioner was found in possession of the counter-feit notes with the knowledge and with an intention to use the same. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-11 were marked and M.Os. 1 to 3 were produced. The trial Court found A-1 to A-3 guilty under Section 489(c) of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay each of them a fine of Rs. 500/-. All the three accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1997 on the file of District Court, Srivilliputtur wherein the appeal was allowed in respect of the first accused and conviction and sentence imposed on A-2 and A-3 were confirmed. Aggrieved against this, the present revision petition is filed by the second accused.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/second accused contended that the Courts below are not justified in convicting him for an offence under Section 489(c) of IPC. There is no evidence to show that the second accused was found in possession of counterfeit notes with the knowledge that they are counterfeit and with an intention to use the same. The complainant in the case, namely, P.W. 5. Inspector alone had arrested the accused and examined all the important witnesses and as such, he cannot be an Investigating Officer and it vitiates the case. P.W. 5 stated that he seized the counterfeit notes, but the note numbers are not mentioned in mahazar Ex. P-1. One of the mahazar witnesses cited in the charge-sheet was also not examined. In short, the case against the revision petitioner is not proved beyond any reasonably doubt.