Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Tiruchirappalli, in S.C.No.55 of 2003 dated 14.07.2006. For Appellants : Mr.G.Marimuthu For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A(MD).No.348 of 2006:
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under
Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No.55 of 2003 dated 14.07.2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Tiruchirapalli.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.(MD).No.352 of 2006:
Riyaz Ahamed @ Riyaz ... Appellant/Accused No.8
-vs-
State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D.(Counterfeit wing) Govt. Estate Chennai-2.
Crime No.1 of 2000 'Q' Branch CID Trichy. ... Respondent/ Complainant Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under
Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1 in S.C.NO.55 of 2003 dated 14.07.2006 as against the Accused No.8 / Appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Selva Legal Aid Counsel For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.(MD).No.353 of 2006:
Arockia Nathan @ Babu ... Appellant/Accused No.2
-vs-
State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D.(Counterfeit wing) Govt. Estate Chennai-2.
Crime No.1 of 2000 'Q' Branch CID Trichy. ... Respondent/ Complainant Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under
Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Trichy in S.C.NO.55 of 2003 dated 14.07.2006 as against the Accused No.1 / Appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Selva, Legal Aid Counsel For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.(MD).No.354 of 2006:
Aravindan @ Gowthaman ... Appellant/Accused No.1
-vs-
State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D.(Counterfeit wing) Govt. Estate Chennai-2.
Crime No.1 of 2000 'Q' Branch CID Trichy. ... Respondent/ Complainant Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under
Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Trichy in S.C.NO.55 of 2003, dated 14.07.2006 as the Accused No.1/ Appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Selva Legal Aid Counsel For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.(MD).No.397 of 2006:
Thangaraj ... Appellant/Accused No.5 -vs- The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Q-Branch C.I.D., Trichy, Tiruchirappalli District, (Crime No.1 of 2000) ... Respondent/ Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under
Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in S.C.No.55 of 2003 dated 14.07.2006 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor :COMMON ORDER Since the appellants in these appeals are the accused persons in the same crime number and they filed these appeals as against the order of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.55 of 2003, dated 14.07.2006, by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tiruchirapalli, these appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by way of common order.
2. Totally, there are nine accused in this case and the case against A3 was split up as a non-bailable warrant is pending against him and the case against A8 was also split up and a separate trial was conducted in S.C.No.161 of 2003 and A8 has been undergoing the sentence. In the above circumstances, the 9th accused is hereby referred to as 8th accused (A8) in this case.
(2.1) All the accused stood charged as follows: Sl.No.
Accused Rank Offences
1. A1 to A7, A9 U/s.120(b) IPC
2. A6, A7 U/s.489-A IPC
3. A1 to 3, 6, 7 U/s.489-A r/w 109 IPC
4. A1 to A5 U/s.489(C) IPC
5. A6 U/s.489(C) IPC
6. A7 U/s.489(C) IPC
7. A9 U/s.489(C)IPC
8. A6, 7, 9 U/s.489(D) IPC
9. A1 to A3 U/s.12 (1)(c) Passport Act 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 (2.2) The Trial Court convicted all the accused as follows: Sl. No. Accused Rank Conviction Sentence a.
A1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 U/s.120(b) IPC 6 months R.I.
b.
A1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 U/s.489(c) IPC 5 years R.I. and Rs.3,000/- fine each, failing which to undergo 6 months S.I. c.
A6 U/s.489(A) 7 years R.I, and Rs.5,000/- fine, failing which to undergo 1 year R.I. The Sentences in which the Accused were convicted have been directed to run concurrently.
(2.3) Now challenging the above conviction and sentence, all the accused filed appeal as follows:
A1 Aravindan @ Gowthaman Crl.A.No.354/2006 A2 Arockiyanathan @ Babu Crl.A.No.353/2006 A3 Sri Anand @ Geetha Anand Case Split up and NBW is Pending A4 Karupasamy Crl.A.No.348/2006 A5 Thangaraj Crl.A.No.397/2006 A6 Mahaboob John @ Johnboy Crl.A.No.322/2006 A7 Lazar Crl.A.No.322/2006 A8 Riyaz Ahamed Crl.A.No.352/2006 (A9 subsequently referred to as A8)
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is stated as follows:
On 24.10.2000, on receiving information from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q-Branch, Trichy that the accused were in possession of counterfeit currency, PW1, who was working as the then Inspector of Police, Q-Branch in Karur formed a team and conducted a search at Ashok Bavan Hotel in Trichy town and found that A1 in this case was staying in Room No.48 and when they inspected the above room, they found that A1 was in possession of counterfeit currency and A5 was also present there and hence they were arrested. Then, A1 voluntarily gave a confession statement, based on which, 40 numbers of 1000 Rupees Srilankan counterfeit currency (M.O.1) were recovered under Ex.P.29 and after recovery, PW1 arrested A2. On such arrest, A2 has voluntarily given a confession statement and on the disclosure statement, they recovered 50 numbers of 1000 Rupees Srilankan counterfeit currency (M.O.2) under Ex.P.30. Subsequently, A3 was arrested and A3 has also given voluntary confession and based on the disclosure statement, they recovered 47 numbers of 1000 rupees and 3 numbers of 1000 rupees Srilankan currency (M.O.3 and M.O.4) and also recovered one 1000 Rupee Original Srilankan currency note (M.O.5) under Ex.P.31. PW1 arrested A4 and on such arrest, A4 has voluntarily given voluntary confession statement and based on the disclosure statement, they recovered 40 numbers of 1000 rupees Srilankan counterfeit currency (M.O.6) under Ex.P.32. Then he arrested A5 and based on his confession statement, they also recovered 40 numbers of 1000 rupees Srilankan currency (M.O.7) under Ex.P.33. All the above materials were recovered in the presence of witnesses. Then P.W.1 filed a special report in Ex.P1. P.W.19-the Inspector of Police also received the currency notes seized by the police. On receipt of the report, he registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Section 489(A), 489(b), 489 (c), 489(d) IPC read with
Section 120(b) IPC. Then he commenced investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses. Subsequently, on 24.10.2000, he arrested A6 at about 11.40 p.m., and on such arrest 963 (6 numbers of 1000 rupees note per sheet) sheets of 1000 Rupees Srilankan counterfeit currency and 27 sheets of 1000 rupees unfinished Srilankan currency and 4 sheets (6 numbers per sheet) of 1000 rupees unfinished Srilankan currency and 38 negatives of 1000 rupees Srilankan currency; 4 negatives of 500 rupees Indian currency; 54 negatives of 100 rupees Indian currency; one negative of 50 rupee Indian currency (M.O.9 to M.O.14) were recovered under Ex.P.24. Thereafter the next day, he arrested A7 and on such arrest, he has given voluntary confession in Ex.P.10 and based on the disclosure statement P.W.19 recovered 2 numbers of 100 rupees Indian currency; a negative of 500 rupees Indian currency; a negative of 100 rupees Indian currency and a negative of 1000 rupees Srilankan currency under Ex.P.25 (M.Os.15,16,17 &19). Then he also arrested A8 at about 3.45 a.m. and on such arrest, A8 has also given a voluntary confession and based on the disclosure statement, he has recovered 3 numbers of 100 rupees Indian counterfeit Currency note and also a negative of 100 Rupees Indian Currency (M.O.22 and M.O.23) under Ex.P.27. Then P.W.19 recorded the statement of other witnesses and remanded the accused to judicial custody and also he sent all the seized currency notes to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court. Thereafter, the case was transferred to CBCID counterfeit Currency Department. P.W.20-the Inspector of Police, CBCID continues the investigation and he also recorded the statement of witnesses and he had taken steps to send the seized Indian Currency notes to Nasik and Srilankan Currency to Srilanka for the purpose of examination. After receipt of the report from Nasik Press (Ex.P.43) and from the Srilankan Central Bank (Ex.P.45) of Srilanka, he completed the investigation and filed a final report.
4. Considering the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as mentioned above in the second para of the judgement. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses and executed 48 documents and also marked 24 material objects. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1, Inspector of Police, Q-Branch, Karur, deposed that he had received information from Trichy with regard to possession and printing of counterfeit currency notes by some accused persons and therefore, he went along with PW2 and PW3, arrested A1 to A5, seized the counterfeit currency notes and filed a special report to P.W.19. P.W.2-Sub Inspector of Police in Q-Branch Investigation Department, in his deposition, also spoke about the arrest of A1 to A5 and seizure of counterfeit Currency notes. P.W.3, the Village Administrative Officer, witnessed the arrest of A1 to A5 and recovery of all the counterfeit currency notes. P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 turned hostile. P.W.7 is Village Administrative Officer, who spoke about the search in the Press belonged to A6 and seizure of camera and other printing materials from the Press. P.W.8, Village Administrative Officer witnessed the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.13) regarding the Offset Press belonging to A6 and also sealing of the press. P.W.9 also spoke about the search in the printing press belongs to A6 and also sealing of the press. P.W.10 is the owner of the press, where A8 was working. P.W.11 is the landlord of the house where A2 and his wife were residing. P.W.12 is the President of the Jamath building in which A6 running a printing Press. P.W.13- P.W.D. Engineer spoke about the Electricity Service Connection and payment of electricity charges for the Press belonging to A6. P.W.14, P.W.15 and P.W.16 turned hostile. P.W.17- Tahsildar, who was working in the Mandapam Refugee Camp has given particulars about A1 and A2, who are the Srilankan refugees staying in the Mandapam Camp. P.W.18-Branch Manager of the Government Press has inspected the Press belonging to A6 and he also examined the camera, which was available in the Press. P.W.19-Inspector of Police in CBCID registered an FIR and conducted the investigation. P.W.20-Inspector of Police conducted further investigation and examined the witnesses and after completion of investigation filed the final report.
5. When the above incriminating materials were put before the accused, the accused denied the same. A2 examined his wife as defence witnesses (D.W.1). According to her, 10 days prior to the occurrence, A2 was arrested and he was in the custody of the police. Then, he showed Ex.D1 to Ex.D3, which were the identity card and family card issued to A2 to show that he is a Srilankan refugee and stayed at Mandapam Refugee Camp. Considering the above material, the trial Court convicted the accused as mentioned in the second para of the judgement. Now, challenging the same, the appeals are before this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants in each case and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the records carefully.
7. The learned counsel for A6 abruptly contended that there is no material available on record to show that the appellant involved in counterfeiting any currency and according to the prosecution, the Press owned by A6 was not in use for quite sometime and hence, absolutely there is no material seized to show that A6 was involved in counterfeiting the Srilankan Currency and Indian Currency. Apart from that the learned counsel for A6 submitted that when there is no material to show that the appellant has involved in counterfeiting the currency, and in the absence of any knowledge, mere possession of counterfeit currency notes is not sufficient to convict the appellant under
Section 489(C) of IPC. He further contended that there is absolutely no material available to show that the appellant-A6 conspired together for committing the offence.
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that all the accused have entered into conspiracy and in pursuance of the above conspiracy, they intended to counterfeit deceptive currency notes and therefore, there is a presumption under
Section 28 of IPC, which is a reputable presumption unless the contrary disputes that the knowledge of the accused can be presumed. In the instant case, A1 to A5 assembled together and all of them were in possession of counterfeit currency of foreign country. Apart from that based on their confessions, they identified other accused and on their arrest, they have also given voluntary confession and based on the disclosure statement, the counterfeit currencies were recovered from all the accused. Apart from that the printing press owned by A6 was also inspected, where it was found that the Press was misused by the accused for printing counterfeit currency and when the counterfeit currency was sent to Nasik, a report was received confirming that the seized currency notes are counterfeit currency. Apart from that the Srilankan currency, which was sent for examination to the Central Bank of Srilanka, was also reported to be the counterfeit currency. Then considering all the above materials, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and he prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
9. I have considered the rival submissions.
10. On the source of information received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q-Branch, Trichy, P.W.1-the Inspector of Police, Q-Branch Investigation Department formed a team along with P.W.2 and inspected the premises of the lodge room, where A1 & A5 were staying and on such suspicion, he arrested them and on such arrest, the accused voluntarily had given confession and based on the disclosure statements, the counterfeit currency notes were recovered from them and seized the same in the presence of the witnesses on the proper seizure mahazar. Thereafter, a report has been submitted by him before P.W.19-Inspector of Police, CBCID, Counterfeit Currency Department. Based on the report, after some investigation, a final report has been filed by P.W.20. All the seized Indian currency notes have been sent for examination by the Government of India, Nasik Printing Press and they also obtained a report from the Nasik Press (Ex.P.43), which clearly shows that all the seized notes are counterfeit notes and the Srilankan Currency Notes, which were seized from the accused were also sent for examination to the Central Bank of Srilanka. In turn, it was sent to the Department of Government Printing Press, Srilanka and based on the report, the Central Bank of Srilanka issued a certificate that all the seized currencies are an imitation of original Srilankan Currency notes. From the above materials, the prosecution has established that the currency notes seized from the appellants/accused are counterfeit currency notes.
11. Now coming to the next question that whether the accused/appellants, who are in possession of Srilankan Currency notes, can be convicted under Section 489-C IPC that so far as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. Mathai Verghese and Others, reported in 1986 (4) SCC 746 in paragraph No.6, has held that the currency note mentioned under
Sections 489-C and
489-A of IPC includes currency notes of all countries as follows: ? 6. .. This analysis reveals that the legislative embargo against counterfeiting envelops and takes within its sweep 'currency notes' of all countries. The embargo is not restricted to 'Indian' currency notes. The legislature could have, but has not, employed the expression 'Indian currency note'. If the legislative intent was to restrict the parameters of prohibition to 'Indian currency' only, the legislature could have said so unhesitatingly. The expression 'currency note' is large enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of 'any' country. When the legislature does not speak of currency notes of India the court interpreting the relevant provision of law cannot substitute the expression 'Indian currency note' in place of the expression 'currency note' as has been done by the High Court. The High Court cannot do so for, the Court can merely interpret the section; it cannot re-write, recast or redesign the section......?
12. The above judgment followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment reported in 2005 (1) SCC 237 (K.Hasim vs. State of Tamil Nadu) has held that the currency notes as mentioned in
Section 489-C IPC is not restricted to Indian currency note alone but it includes the dollar also and it appears to foreign currency notes. In the above circumstances, even though the accused were found in possession of Srilankan counterfeit currency, once it is proved that the Currency Notes possessed by the accused are counterfeit currency, they are also liable to be punished under
Section 489-C IPC. Now we have to consider that whether prosecution has established the fact that the appellant had the knowledge about the counterfeit currency. But under
Section 489-C IPC, the prosecution has proved that the accused had the knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeit notes, which were in their possession.
13.
Section 28 of IPC reads about the counterfeit currency as follows: ?A person is said to "counterfeit" who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced.?
14. The main ingredients of
Section 28 IPC is of one thing to resemble another or intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception and knowing it to be likely that deception would thereby be practiced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Hasim vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in 2005 (1) SCC 237 in paragraph No.51 has held as follows: ? 51.
Section 28 denies the word ?counterfeiting? in very wide terms. The main ingredients of counterfeiting as laid down in
Section 28 are: (1)causing one thing o resemble another thing; (2)intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception; or (3)knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised. Thus, if one thing is made to resemble another thing and the intention is that by such resemblance deception would be practised or even if there is no intention but it is known to be likely that the resemblance is such that deception will thereby be practised, there is counterfeiting.?
15. Apart from that from the prosecution case, it could be seen that A1 to A5 were used to assemble together in a hotel room, out of whom, A1 and A2 are Srilankan Nationals residing in India as refugees and all of them are in possession of Srilankan counterfeit currency and also Indian currency and they have all conspired together and they were intended to use the above said currency. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that all the appellants were in possession of currency without any knowledge that the currency is a counterfeit currency. In the said circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has clearly proved the charge that the offence under
Section 489-C IPC has been made out against the accused persons.
16. Coming to the next question, as to whether the prosecution has proved the offence under
Section 489-A IPC against A6, it could be seen that the specific case of the prosecution is that A6 is the owner of the printing Press and from that printing Press, the accused were printing counterfeit currency. In the circumstances, he committed the offences under Section 489- A. But from the evidence of P.W.20, the investigating officer, in the cross- examination clearly admitted that at the time of inspection of the printing Press, the Press was not in use and the main motor and compressor were also not available in the printing Press as early as on 28.06.1999 itself, since the Bank which advanced loan to A6 had removed the main motor and compressor for default in payment of loan amount.
17. Apart from that P.W.18-Branch Manager of Government Press, who inspected the printing press also filed a report in Ex.P.22, wherein he has clearly mentioned that the printing press was not in working condition, in which multi colour printing can be done and the main motor and compressor are not found in the machine itself during inspection.
18. Apart from that P.W.20-the Investigating Officer evidenced the negative seized from P.W.6 and also evidenced that the printing Press was not in a working condition. From the above materials, it could be seen that there is no material available on record to show that A6 in this case has printed the counterfeit currency in his Press. Hence, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against A6. Hence, he is liable to be acquitted from the charges under
Section 489-A IPC. However, since the counterfeit currency was also seized from A6, he is liable to be convicted under
Section 489-C IPC. The trial Court did not convict A6 under
Section 489-C IPC only on the ground that already he has been convicted under
Section 489-A. Since the charge against A6 for the offence under Section 489- A is not proved, he is liable to be convicted under
Section 489-C IPC.
19. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that A4 was in jail for 196 days, A5 for 202 days, A6 for 178 days, A7 for 264 days and A8 was in jail for 180 days and they are Indian nationals. A1 was in jail for 863 days and A2 was in jail for 295 days and both are Srilankan Nationals.
20.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that A4 to A8 are Indian nationals and they are poor and they have family to maintain. He further submitted that already they are in judicial custody for more than six months and they had no bad antecedents and they also want to reform themselves.
In the result, (i) Crl.A.(MD) No.322 of 2006 : This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed;
(a) the conviction of the 2nd appellant/A7 for offence under
Section 120-B and
489-C of IPC are confirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months;
(b) the conviction of the 1st appellant/A6 for offence under
Section 120-B of IPC is confirmed and insofar as the conviction under
Section 489-A of IPC is set aside and instead he is convicted for offence under
Section 489-C of IPC and he is sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence; A6 is acquitted of the charges under
Section 489-A of IPC;
(c) Fine amount already paid, if any, by the appellants/A6 & A7 shall be appropriated towards the fine now imposed by this court and A6 & A7 shall pay the balance amount of fine in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
(ii) Crl.A.(MD) No.354 of 2006: This criminal appeal is partly allowed; the conviction of the appellant/A1 for offence under
Section 120-B and
489-C of IPC are confirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence;
Fine amount already paid, if any, by the appellant/A1 shall be appropriated towards the fine now imposed by this court and A1 shall pay the balance amount of fine in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
(iii) Crl.A.(MD) No.353 of 2006: This criminal appeal is partly allowed; the conviction of the appellant/A2 for offence under
Section 120-B and
489-C of IPC are confirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence, Fine amount already paid, if any, by the appellant/A2 shall be appropriated towards the fine now imposed by this court and A2 shall pay the balance amount of fine in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
(iv) Crl.A.(MD) No.348 of 2006: This criminal appeal is partly allowed; the conviction of the appellant/A4 for offence under
Section 120-B and
489-C of IPC are confirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence;
Fine amount already paid, if any, by the appellant/A4 shall be appropriated towards the fine now imposed by this court and A4 shall pay the balance amount of fine in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2006 in Crl.A.(MD) No.348 of 2016 is closed.
(v) Crl.A.(MD) No.397 of 2006: This criminal appeal is partly allowed; the conviction of the appellant/A5 for offence under
Section 120-B and
489-C of IPC are confirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence;
Fine amount already paid, if any, by the appellant/A5 shall be appropriated towards the fine now imposed by this court and A5 shall pay the balance amount of fine in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
(vi) Crl.A.(MD) No.352 of 2006: This criminal appeal is partly allowed; the conviction of the appellant/A8 for offence under
Section 120-B and
489-C of IPC are confirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence;
Fine amount already paid, if any, by the appellant/A8 shall be appropriated towards the fine now imposed by this court and A8 shall pay the balance amount of fine in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Tiruchirappalli,
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.