STATE Vs. C RONALD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal arises out of an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands at Port Blair granting benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The prosecution story is as follows: 1.1. On 26.11.1997 Sub-Inspector Abdul Salam received a secret information that in the evening of 25.11.1997 C. Ronald participated in a gambling in the house of one Manicaam at Bathu Basti. Some hundred rupee notes, sought to be used by him at the gambling were not accepted by the co-gamblers on the ground that they were fake, whereafter Ronald left the place. Upon receipt of the information the S.I. Salam left the Police Station in search of C. Ronald who was caught at about 13.05 hours. Upon his body being searched four fake currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination bearing the same serial numbers namely IPQ-204124 were recovered from his chest pocket in the presence of two witnesses namely Thangaraj and Ramzan Ali. The notes were taken into custody, a panchnama was prepared and Ronald was arrested. The accused, the S.I. and the witnesses signed the panchnama. An FIR was thereafter lodged by the S.I., Salam. Inspector R.B. Yadav of the CID Department at Port Blair was entrusted with the investigation of the case at 14.15 hours by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The FIR was made available to him. During interrogation Ronald disclosed the name of M.P. Arun. At about 14.30 hours, constable Rajesh was deputed by Inspector Yadav for the purpose of bringing Arun. Arun came along at about 14.55 hours. Arun disclosed the name of Anil Kumar. Again constable Rajesh was deputed for the purpose of bringing Anil Kumar and he was brought in the Police Station at about 15.30 hours. 1.2. At about 16,00 hours Arun made a statement to the police which was recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act disclosing that he borrowed from Anil Kumar a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on 25.11.1997 which were all in Rs. 100/- denomination. In the evening around 8/8.30 P.M. on 25.11.1997 he lent a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from out of Rs. 12,000/- to Ronald. On 26.11.1997 Ronald informed Arun in the morning that the notes which he gave were not accepted by the gamblers on the ground that they were fake. Ronald returned to Arun 4 notes which the gamblers had refused to accept. During lunch break when Arun came back to his house from the office, he learnt that Ronald had been arrested for keeping fake currency whereupon Arun moved with the total sum of Rs. 7,400/- which was given to him by Anil to his latrine. He tore notes into small pieces threw it in the pan and flushed the same with buckets of water. He further said that by opening the septic tank the torn pieces could be recovered. 1.3. At about 16.10 hours Anil made a statement to the police which was also recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Anil in his statement disclosed that in repayment of a loan, one Kuttan of Santosh Jewellery gave him Rs. 49,000/- by currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination about 7 or 8 days prior to 25.11.1997. On 25.11.1997 he lent a sum of Rs. 12,000/- to Arun from out of the aforesaid sum and the balance sum of Rs. 37,000/- was lying with him in his Steel Almirah inside his bedroom which he could hand over to the police if he were taken to that place. 1.4. Ronald had already made a statement which was recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act at about 14.30 hours stating that around 8/8.30 in the night on 25.11.1997 he borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from Arun which were all in Rs. 100 denomination. He went to the place where gambling was regular held. He threw 4 notes on the table which the gamblers refused to accept on the ground that they were fake. He accordingly took back the 4 notes and replaced the same with genuine currency amounting to Rs. 400/- and came back to his house. 42 notes of Rs. 100 denominations, given to him by Arun, which he had wrapped in a red handkerchief and kept the same concealed inside a shoe, which was lying on a rack along with other shoes and chappals at his house, which he could show if he were taken to that place. 1.5. Pursuant to the aforesaid statements made by the accused persons 42 notes were recovered from the house of Ronald, wrapped in a red handkerchief from inside a shoe which were seized by Inspector Yadav at 14.45 hours in the presence of the same witnesses namely Thangaraj and Ramzan Ali. Each of the 42 notes bore the same serial numbers namely 9NP 892890. 1.6. At 16.35 hours 370 notes were seized from the second shelf of the Steel Almirah lying in the bedroom of Anil. A seizure list was prepared disclosing the serial numbers which the notes contained, which was signed by the accused, the Inspector and the said two witnesses. 1.7. At about 17,00 hours on 27.11.1997 with the help of three sweeper the septic tank of Arun's ancestral house was opened. From the first hole of the septic tank torn pieces of 51 currency notes were recovered. A seizure list/panchnama was prepared which was signed by the accused, the Inspector and the said sweepers. Some photographs of the torn pieces of notes are also stated to have been exposed. 1.8. Some more recoveries of fake currency notes were also made, which will be discussed in detail at a later stage, with which the accused persons are not concerned. The currency notes recovered from the accused persons separately packed according to their serial numbers were sent by the S.P. to the Central Forensic Science Institute, Calcutta for examination under the cover of a letter dated 20.2.1998. The Central Forensic Science Institute opined that each one of the 437 currency notes sent to them for examination was fake. The torn pieces of the notes were however not examined by them. 1.9. Each one of the accused persons was charged under sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code Arun was in addition charged under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the evidence of the offence to disappear. It may be convenient to set out the provisions of sections 489B and 489C which are as follows:

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge recorded a definite finding that the currency notes were counterfeit but at the same time held that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case and he acquitted the accused persons giving them benefit of doubt. He entertained a doubt as to whether the notes, which were before him were the ones which had been seized from the possession of Ronald and Anil. The fact that the witnesses particularly the seizure witnesses turned hostile was also a disquieting factor. He thought that the investigating agency did not take its task seriously. The reasons which weighed with him in his own words are as follows:

(3.) Mr. Ray learned senior advocate appearing for the State- appellant made the following submissions: (a) Evidence of PW11 Forensic Expert was that the currency notes were fake. (b) The learned Sessions Judge after coming to a finding that "this Court has got no hesitation to hold that those questioned documents or currency notes No. Q 1 to Q436 were not genuine," indulged in a fanciful thinking that the currency notes produced before the Court and found by him to be spurious might not be the ones which were recovered from the accused persons because signature of the accused persons was not taken on the currency notes themselves. But he did not take notice of the fact that the signature of the accused persons and the seizure witnesses were taken on the wrappers in which the currency notes seized by the police were kept and the same were duly proved in accordance with law. This doubt was all the more fanciful because there was no suggestion by any one that the notes produced before the Court were not the ones which seized from the accused persons. (c) The learned Sessions Judge did not give any weight to the statements recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recovery and discovery of fact made pursuant thereto. (d) The learned Sessions Judge failed to separate the grain from the chaff. (e) The statement made on oath by Ramzan Ali under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure was not taken into consideration at all. (f) There was enough evidence on the record to show that the prosecution had satisfactorily proved its case.