THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1131 of 2007 28-04-2014 BETWEEN:
State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Appellant AND Shaik Mahaboob Basha …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1131 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 03.05.2005 passed in S.C.No.491 of 2004 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 489(c) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That on 08.06.2004, at about 4.00 p.m., the Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur, P.W.3, found the accused in front of Mumtaz hotel near Siva Sankar talkies on suspicion, seized counterfeit currency notes three in number of hundred rupees denomination under the cover of panchanama in the presence of Panchayat Secretary, P.W.1 and one G.Srinivasulu, P.W.2, and sent the counterfeit notes to F.S.L., Nasik and the F.S.L., opines that they are counterfeit notes. Hence, a case was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 489(c) IPC.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, during the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked and M.O.1 was marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the following grounds.
Even P.Ws.1 to 3 have stated in their chief examination that they seized M.O.1 from possession of accused but their cross examination reveals that there are so many discrepancies between their evidence, they are unable to state who is scribe of Ex.P.1 and who actually seized M.O.1. There is no corroboration between the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 about the seizure of M.O.1.
The independent witness P.W.1, Panchayat Secretary, was not able to give descriptive particulars of place of seizure and being a Panchayat Secretary he could not able to speak and had really he was present at the time of seizure of M.O.1 he would have definitely given true version, so it draws to a conclusion that he was not at all present at the time of alleged seizure and P.W.2 another independent witness also given different version in the cross examination which is not corroborated either with P.W.1 or P.W.3, likewise P.W.3 also given different version which is not supported by P.Ws.1 and 2, seizure of property was not established by the prosecution by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused/respondent.
The above observations given by the learned trial Judge are in accordance with law. The learned trial Judge has considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective. Further, there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and as such, this Court feels that the accused is entitled for acquittal of the offence alleged.
Considering the findings recorded by the trial Court and the evidence on record, this Court feels that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 489(c) IPC. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 28.04.2014 pln