- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27253 CRL.A No. 422 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2025 (C) BETWEEN: SRI. ABBAS S/O IDDI KUNHI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT. 1-31, DARBE HOUSE, ERA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALORE - 574 142 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR LAW AND ORDER, MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 570 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE IN SC.NO.94/2021 DTD 06.02.2025 AND 12.02.2025 BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489(C) OF IPC, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE ACQUITTAL OF THE APPELLANT. THE ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RI FOR 05 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.20,000/- AND Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27253 CRL.A No. 422 of 2025 IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, TO UNDERGO RI FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF 02 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489(C) OF IPC. THE SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The accused in SC.No.94/2021, on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, is impugning the Judgment of Conviction dated 06.02.2025 and Order of Sentence dated 12.02.2025, convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.20,000/-, with default sentence. 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution are that, PW2 received credible information about the accused, who was in possession of counterfeit currency notes, trying to circulate the same in various shops. He lodged the first information as per Ex.P4 and registered the FIR. He informed this fact to his higher Officer- PW12 being the PSI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27253 CRL.A No. 422 of 2025 who led the raiding team, gone to the fancy store owned by PW4. The accused was found in possession of, in all, 13 notes out of which, two were original currency notes, of Rs.100/- each, while 11 notes were fake currency notes, rather color xerox copies of the original notes. The mahazar as per Ex.P1 was drawn in the presence of PW1 and CW2. The spot mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P2. Upon apprehending the accused, the Investigating Officer got the information that, the color xerox of the fake currency notes were taken by the accused in the xerox shop belonging to PW7 through PW6 who is the employee, who took the color xerox of the currency notes and gave to the accused. The printer used in getting the color xerox of the currency notes was seized under Ex.P3, which is as per MO3. Therefore, it is the contention of the prosecution that the accused has taken the color xerox of the original currency note of Rs.100/- and tried to circulate the same in various shops belonging to PWs.4 and 5, thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 489C of IPC. 3. The Trial Court took cognizance for the above said offence and summoned the accused. The accused has appeared - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27253 CRL.A No. 422 of 2025 before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to 14 and identified MOs.1 to 3 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record, formed an opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489C of IPC and accordingly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, while acquitting the accused for the other offence punishable under Section 489B of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused is before this Court. 4. Heard Sri. B.Lethif, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27253 CRL.A No. 422 of 2025 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellant -accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court? My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. It is the contention of the prosecution that PW2 received the credible information about the accused, who was in possession of fake currency notes and trying to circulate the same in various shops. The FIR came to be registered on the basis of his report as per Ex.P4. He informed this fact to his higher Officer- PW12. PW12 along with PW2 went to the spot. The mahazar witnesses are PW1 and CW2. They have noticed that the accused was trying to circulate the fake currency notes in the shop belonging to PWs.4 and 5. He was apprehended, two original currency notes as per MO2 and 11 fake currency - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27253 CRL.A No. 422 of 2025 notes as per MO1 were seized from his possession under the mahazar Ex.P1. The spot mahazar is as per Ex.P2. 7. It is the further contention of the prosecution that during investigation, the Investigating Officer came to know that the accused had taken the color xerox of the notes in the xerox centre belonging to PW7 and such xerox was taken by his employee-PW6. The mahazar as per Ex.P3 was drawn in the xerox shop and the printer as per MO3 was seized under Ex.P3. 8. Prosecution examined PW1, who is one of the mahazar witnesses to Exs.P1 to 3. But this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution to prove any of these mahazars. According to the case made out by the prosecution, CW2 is the other mahazar witness to Exs.P1 to 3, but was not examined before the Trial Court for the reasons best known to the prosecution. PW3 is the owner of the bakery, PW4 is the owner of fancy store, PW5 is also the owner of shop and it is the contention of the prosecution that the accused was trying to circulate the fake currency notes in these shops. But unfortunately, none of these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27253 CRL.A No. 422 of 2025 9. PW6 is said to be the employee in the xerox centre. PW7 is the owner of the said shop, where the printer as per MO3, which was used to get the color xerox for the accused, was recovered under Ex.P3. PWs.6 and 7 have also not supported the case of the prosecution except PW7 saying that, MO3 belongs to him and the same was seized under Ex.P3. PWs.9, 11 and 13 are the formal official witnesses. PW10 is the Deputy General Manager who has issued the report as per Ex.P11, confirming that MO1 are the fake currency notes and MO2 are the original currency notes. 10. In view of the above, the only evidence of PWs.2 and 12 is available with regard to apprehending of the accused, he was found in possession of the fake currency notes, trying to circulate the same at various shops. On going through the evidence of PWs.2 and 12, they gave contradictory version stating that, the accused on seeing the police started running away as per the version of PW2, whereas according to PW12, they gone to the spot, caught hold of the accused and till then, he was not aware as to what was happening there. None of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27253 CRL.A No. 422 of 2025 prosecution. In other words, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW2 with regard to commission of the offence. 11. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that, PW6 was the employee working in the xerox centre owned by PW7 where the accused had taken the color xerox of Rs.100/- currency notes. If at all, PW6 has taken such color xerox and gave to the accused, she must also be an accused, who assisted the accused in taking the color xerox of the currency notes or in other words, making the fake currency notes. Similarly, PW7 being the owner of the xerox centre should also to be the accused as his printer was used in commission of the offence. But none of them were arrayed as an accused for the reasons best known to the prosecution. In view of all these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused solely on the basis of the inconsistent version of PWs.2 and 12, without there being any corroboration with regard to the material particulars deposed by them. 12. It is stated that the appellant herein was the accused who involved in similar offence. But nothing has been - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27253 CRL.A No. 422 of 2025 placed before the Court to contend that, he was either prosecuted or convicted in any other similar cases. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is not safe to convict the accused based on such materials. Accordingly, he is entitled for acquittal. 13. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order or sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court based its judgment solely on the versions of PWs.2 and 12, who are the official witnesses without there being any corroboration by other independent witnesses. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The Judgment of Conviction dated 06.02.2025 and Order of Sentence dated 12.02.2025 passed in SC.No.94/2021, on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, is hereby set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27253 CRL.A No. 422 of 2025 (iii) Consequently, accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 489C of IPC. (iv) Bail bond of the accused and that of his sureties shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him after appeal period is over. Registry to send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment for information and for needful action. Intimate the jail authority to release the appellant forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in custody in any other cases. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33