No Infirmity Attaches To Police Officials' Testimony Merely Because They Belong To Police Force: Kerala HC Confirms Conviction Of Two Men In Fake Currency Case

The High Court was considering a Revision Petition filed by the accused-revision petitioners assailing the judgment confirming their conviction under Section 489-C of Indian Penal Code.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice M.B. Snehalatha said, “Ext.P10 expert opinion received from the Government of India Bank Note Press, Deewas, Madhya Pradesh would reveal that the notes seized from A1 and A2 which were sent for expert opinion were counterfeit notes of ₹1,000/- denomination. Thus, prosecution case that A1 and A2 were found in possession of 256 number counterfeit currency notes of ₹1,000/- denomination stands established by the prosecution as rightly held by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge.”

Advocate P.P. Ramachandran represented the Revision Petitioners while Senior Public Prosecutor T.R. Renjith represented the Respondent-State.

It was the case of the prosecution that two accused persons who were occupying a room in a Lodge in Kuthuparamba, were found in possession of 256 counterfeit currency notes of Rs 1000 denomination. It was alleged that such notes were kept for the purpose of distributing the same as genuine currency notes. Further, it was also alleged that it was the third accused who entrusted the counterfeit currency notes to the other two accused. When the matter reached the Trial Court, the first two accused persons were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each while the third accused was acquitted.

The accused revisionists contended that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of counterfeit currency notes from them. Further, it was contended that the case was originally investigated by PW9 who had no jurisdiction to investigate the case which was fatal to the prosecution case.

The Bench was of the view that both the Detecting Officer(PW1) and an attendant of the Lodge had confirmed that on the alleged date of the incident, the police party arrived at the lodge and seized the counterfeit currency notes from the two occupants. The attender had stated that due to lapse of time, he couldn’t identify the persons who were arrested on the said date. However, the Bench noted that he had categorically testified that the search was conducted and the counterfeit currency notes were seized by the police from the two occupants. “Therefore, his inability to identify the accused during trial is not a ground to discard his evidence”, the Court added.

Next the Bench considered in detail the role of PW9, who was the then Circle Inspector of Police, who conducted the initial investigation and seized the register of the said lodge. It was observed that the mere fact that part of the investigation was conducted by PW9 as per the direction of the superior police officer did not in any way affect the credibility of the prosecution case.

Noticing that the Crime Branch Detective Inspector also took steps to send the notes for examination to the Bank Note Press through the court, the Bench asserted that there was no material to hold that the witnesses were in any way motivated to falsely implicate the accused in a grave crime of this nature. It was noted that there was no delay in producing the search list and FIR before the court and this added credibility to the prosecution case regarding the search and the seizure of counterfeit currency.

In the search list, the detecting officer had specifically noted down the serial number of the currency notes seized from the accused. Therefore the Bench opined that the fact that the counterfeit notes seized were not sealed by the detecting officer had not caused any prejudice to the accused. The seizure of fake currency notes from the possession of the first two accused stood proved by the prosecution.

The Bench explained that the accused had no case that PW1 was nurturing any grudge or vendetta against them so as to implicate them falsely in a crime of this nature. The Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Girja Prasad v. State of M.P (2007) 7 SCC 625 wherein it has been held that the presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a Police Official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of Police Officials merely because they belong to the Police Force.

“Accused have absolutely no explanation at all as to how they came into possession of large quantity of counterfeit currency notes and it necessarily give rise to an inference that they possessed it with the intention or knowledge as contemplated under Section 489C IPC and they had requisite mens rea for possession of counterfeit currency notes”, the Bench added while confirming the conviction under section 498A IPC.

The Bench concluded the matter by dismissing the criminal revision and observing, “The counterfeiting of currency notes is a grave offence which destabilises and undermines the economy and it poses threat to the security of the nation. Considering the gravity of offence, the sentence awarded is not harsh or excessive.”

Cause Title: B. Aboobacker vs. State of Kerala [Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:75158]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate P.P. Ramachandran

Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor T.R. Renjith

Click here to read/download Order: