ADITYA YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order five criminal revision applications filed by the same petitioner are being disposed of. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa that charge be framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 489-B Indian Penal Code in each of the Sessions Case i.e. Sessions Case No.38/2011, 40/2011, 35/2011, 37/2011 and 46/2011.

(2.) The particulars of the five sessions cases are as follows:(chart) <p>Sr. no. Criminal Revision Applications Sessions Case Complaint FIR No. No. of notes Charge framed u/s 489-B IPC in respect of 1 37/2012 38/2011 3/6/2010. By Manager ICICI Bank for counterfeit notes found during period March- May 2010 in ICICI Bank, Calangute Branch. 122/2010 7 5DA 678592 of Rs.500/- 2 38/2012 40/2011 13/1/2011. By Manager ICICI Bank for counterfeit notes found during period October 2010 13.1.2011 in ICICI Bank, Calangute Branch '11/2011 12 7AS 875664 of Rs.500/- 3 39/2012 35/2011 30/6/2011. By Manager ICICI Bank for counterfeit notes found during period March 2011-30.6.2011 in Calangute Branch 148/2011 17 6BB 428195 of Rs.500/- 4 40/2012 37/2011 14/12/2010. By Manager ICICI bank for counterfeit notes found during period October 2010- 14.12.2010 in ICICI Bank, Mapusa 356/2010 14 5DA 678577 of Rs.500/- 9AV 795808 of Rs.500/- 9AV 795832 of Rs.500/- 7AS 875677 of Rs.500/- 7AS 875657 of Rs.500/- 5 41/2012 46/2011 22/10/2010. By Manager ICICI bank for counterfeit notes found during period June 2010-September 2010 199/2010 6 3AB 095261 of Rs.500/- 3AB 095202 of Rs.500/-

(3.) The complainant - Bank had detected certain counterfeit notes during different periods mentioned in each complaint. But it was unable to identify either the tenderer of the notes or the counter at which the same had been received. The complaint registered at the instance of the Bank was therefore against unknown persons. After investigation the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner herein as accused no.1 and PSI Vaibhav Naik as accused no.2. When the sessions cases were taken up for arguments before charge the orders impugned in the revision applications came to be passed, discharging accused no.2 and directing framing of charge against applicant no.1. It was the case of the petitioner before the Sessions Court that there is nothing on record to connect him to the offences alleged and that he has been sought to be proceeded against only on probabilities and surmises.