PEER MOHAMMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above Criminal Appeals have arisen from and out of one and same judgment dated 27-3-2002 rendered in S.C. No. 59 of 2001 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Chennai, thereby convicting and sentencing the first accused the appellant in C.A. No. 722 of 2002 to undergo R.I. for 9 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo further R.I. for three months for the offences committed under Section 120B r/w 489-B of the of the IPC and to undergo R.I. for 2 years for the offences committed under Section 120B r/w 489-C of the IPC and a sentence of R.I. for 9 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default R.I. for three months for the offences committed under Section 489-B of the IPC and sentence of R.I. for 6 years for the offence committed under Section 489-C of the IPC. Likewise, so far as it is concerned with the second accused, the appellant in C.A. No. 722 of 2002, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 9 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for three months for the offences committed under Section 120B r/w 489-B of IPC and conviction and sentence of R.I. for 6 years for the offences committed under Section 120B r/w Section 489-C of IPC and further sentence of R.I. for 6 years for the offence committed under Section 489-C of IPC further ordering the sentence against both the appellants to run concurrently. The appellant in C.A. No. 462 of 2002 is the second accused and the appellant in C.A. No. 722 of 2002 is the first accused and since, both the above appeals have been referred against the above conviction and sentence respectively they are heard and are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The first charge against both the appellants in the above Sessions Case is that on 17-11-1998 at about 11.00 a.m. at E.V.R. Road Moore Market Bus Stop, on suspicion, the first accused was searched and found that he was in possession of six Counterfeit notes each of the denomination of Rs. 100/- and on his examination it came to be known that he had paid one Veeriah of Rajapalayam a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and had obtained the counterfeit notes to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- in five bundles, which he handed over to the second accused on receipt of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- that the first accused also further obtained counterfeit notes for Rs. 50,000/- from an elderly person at Sivakasi on payment of Rs. 10,000/- and gave those counterfeit notes also to the second accused and on commission of such offences both the first and the second accused became liable to be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section.489-B of I.P.C.

(3.) Secondly the first accused having distributed the counterfeit notes of 100 Rupees demonination with the second accused and the second accused having received the same they have both become liable to be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w 489-C of I.P.C.