LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-210

R. RAJA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBCID

Decided On June 23, 2014
R. RAJA Appellant
V/S
Inspector of Police CBCID Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Criminal Appeals are filed against the judgement dated 12.03.2013 made in SC.No.146/2009 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District, thereby (a) convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants/A1 to A3 under Sections 489(A), 489(B) and 489(D) of IPC to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - for each offence, in default to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment, (b) convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants/A1 to A3 under Section 489(C) to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and (c) ordering the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the Prosecution is that on information about the involvement of a gang, on 14.11.2007 at 8.00 p.m. in printing and circulation of Indian Counterfeit Currency notes at Arulambadi Village, Moongilthuraipattu Police Station Limit, Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District, PW.1, the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Namakkal and PW.5 the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Salem proceeded to the House bearing Door No. 1/89, Vinayagar Koil Street, Arulambadi Village and found the Appellants/accused involving in the process of printing fake indian currency notes using HP Colour Xerox Printer, paper cutting machine, heater machine, electronic junction box, electronic adopter, silk screen boards, cartridges , green and white colour foil paper roll, etc. On 15.11.2007 at 22.00 hours all the above items were seized from the accused in the mahazar in the presence of the witnesses and the accused were arrested on 15.11.2007 at 23.00 hours. After completing investigation, the Appellants/accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 489(A), 489(B), 489(C), 489(D) read with 511 and 34 of IPC for possession, circulation and printing of counterfeit Indian Rupee notes.

(3.) MR . M. Venkataraman, the learned senior counsel for the Appellants strenuously contended that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case and it is highly unsafe to place reliance on such evidence to base conviction of the Appellants. The learned senior counsel pointed out that the Prosecution failed to prove that A1 to A3 were in occupation of the house at the time of occurrence. The Villagers PW.7 to PW.9 having not supported the Prosecution, there is no other evidence to show that A1 to A3 were occupying the house. Neither the owner nor the landlord was examined to prove that A1 to A3 were the tenants in the house.