1. The first accused in S.C. No.51/2005 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, has filed this appeal, under Section 374 and 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code [hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’, for short] challenging the verdict in the above case whereby, he was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC', for short).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/first accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the Additional Sessions Court.

3. Here, accused Nos. 1 to 4 alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) read with Section 34 of the IPC and on the basis of the said allegations, Crime No. 97/98 of Vakathanam Police Station was registered and later investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, CFS, Ernakualm. The prosecution case is that, accused Nos. 1 to 4, in furtherance of their common intention engaged in trafficking of counterfeit Indian currency notes having denomination of Rs. 100/- and accused Nos. 1 and 2 obtained 80 counterfeit currency notes having denomination of Rs. 100/- from accused Nos. 3 and 4 and on 2nd September 1998 at about 6.30 p.m., accused Nos. 1 and 2 purchased 202 kilograms chicken from the poultry farm owned by PW4(CW1) defacto complainant. It is alleged that accused possessed counterfeit Indian currency notes and trafficked the same in furtherance of their common intention. PW9(CW11) the then Sub Inspector of Police, Vakathanam Police Station recorded the first information statement i.e., Ext.P4 given by PW4, the defacto complainant and registered this case and prepared Ext.P4(a) first information report. PW9 Sub Inspector seized MO1 series 35 counterfeit currency notes having denomination of Rs.100/-, which were produced by PW4 as per Ext.P1 mahazar. After that investigation was handed over to CBCID, CFS Ernakulam and witness No. 12 DYSP conducted investigation in this case. Witness No. 14 Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW10) verified the records and laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Changanacherry.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded evidence and completed trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 10 were examined, Exts.P1 to P14 and MO1 to MO4 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Exts. D1 to D8 also were marked on the side of the defence.

5. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Court found, that the appellant/first accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of the IPC, while accused Nos. 2 to 4 were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of the IPC and they were acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the appellant/first accused was sentenced.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/first accused pointed out material contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW4 and also other anomalies in the evidence to substantiate that the trial court went wrong in finding commission of offences punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of the IPC by the appellant/first accused. In this regard, the learned counsel read out the evidence of PW1 and PW4 as well as PW7. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that if the evidence of PW1 and PW7 taken together, eschewing the anomaly in the evidence of PW4, the trial judge is right in finding commission of the above said offences and therefore, the verdict did not require any interference.

7. Having apprised the rival submissions, the points to be determined are :

                  1. Whether the Additional Sessions Court is justified in finding that the accused committed the offence under Section 489(B) of the IPC?

                  2. Whether the Additional Sessions Court is right in holding that the accused committed the offence under Section 489(C) of the IPC?

                  3. Whether the verdict of the Additional Sessions Court would require interference?

                  4. Order to be passed?

8. Point Nos. 1 to 4:- In the instant case, the thrust of the argument rendered by the learned counsel for the appellant/first accused, is based on the material contradiction in the evidence of PW1, who is none other than the worker of the chicken farm run by Jacob, with that of PW4, Jacob, who alleged to have received the fake notes. PW1 deposed that he had worked in the chicken farm for 14 years and the duty time was in between 6.00 A.M., to 7.00 P.M. According to him, on 02.09.1998, one reached the farm and purchased 202 kilograms live chicken and given a sum of Rs. 8,080/- and according to him, the same was given to Jacob @ Babukutty (PW4). He had narrated the denominations of the notes and during chief examination, he identified the first accused as the person who came to the workplace, to buy chicken and entrusted the fake notes to PW4.

9. PW4, Jacob @ Babukutty while giving evidence supported the prosecution case and identified accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the dock. According to him, it was the second accused, who had given the alleged fake notes to him. It is relevant to note that even though PW1 and PW4 had given contrary statements regarding the person, who had given fake notes to PW4, the learned Public Prosecutor failed to re-examine PW4 to clarify the anomaly. According to PW7, who had driven the tempo in which the accused persons who came to the chicken farm for purchasing chicken had travelled, the chicken was purchased by the first accused, and the payment for the same was also made by the first accused.

10. In the instant case, during trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge tried four accused persons and out of which accused persons 2 to 4 were acquitted for want of evidence and the first accused alone was convicted and sentenced, mainly relying on the evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW7.

11. Coming to the evidence of PW4, he deposed that the second accused is the person who had given money on purchase of chicken. He initially deposed before court that he had no familiarity with first accused and in the later part of his cross examination, he deposed that he was familiar with the first accused and also her wife, Omana, and they used to purchase chicken from his chicken farm. In this case, the crime was reported on the second day, when it was found by PW4 that notes given were fake notes.

12. Here the prosecution allegation is that accused Nos. 1 to 4 committed offences punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of the IPC, where possession of counterfeit currency notes and use of the same make the possessor/possessors and user/users as offender/offenders. In such cases, the identity of the offender is a very crucial aspect, since the same is decisive to find out, who committed the said offences. Therefore, in such cases, the prosecution is duty bound to prove the identity of the person/persons who actually possessed and used the fake notes. Here, as per the evidence of PW1 and PW7, it was the first accused who purchased the chicken and given the notes. During cross-examination, PW1 denied his previous statement in the FIS that he had narrated the identity of the person who had paid the money as a 'fat man' and the same got marked as Ext.D1 contradiction. The prosecution records would reveal that the 'fat man' is none other than the second accused. When PW4, who dealt with the transaction and admittedly fully aware of the handing over of the fake notes given to him, given evidence that it was the second accused, who had handed over the fake notes, the contrary evidence of PW1 and PW7 cannot be relied on without making attempt to challenge the evidence of PW4 as unacceptable as against the evidence of PW1 and PW7. Thus in the instant case, the identity of the appellant/first accused, as the person, who had possessed and handed over the fake currency notes to PW4 is in the midst of doubts and the benefit of doubt shall go in favour of the first accused.

13. Therefore, the appellant/first accused is entitled to get the benefit of the doubt and the verdict under challenge would require interference.

14. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Court against the appellant/first accused are set aside. Consequently, the appellant/first accused is acquitted for the offences under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of the IPC. The bail bond executed by the appellant/first accused shall stand cancelled. He is set at liberty forthwith.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Additional Sessions concerned, forthwith, for information and compliance.