- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2638 CRL.P No. 103221 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103221 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. DAKHALU S/O. BHIMARAO LAKKEBAILKAR, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED ARMY PERSONNEL NOW AGRICULTURE, R/O. KARANJAL VILLAGE, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591120. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHCHIDANAND BABAJI PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH IO, KHANAPUR PS, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. 2. SRI. PRAVEEN S/O. RUDRAGOUD GANGOL AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. PSI, R/O. KHANAPUR PS, KHANAPUR, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI, (DE FACTO COMPLAINANT), R/BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SESSIONS CASE NO.16/2021 ARISING OUT OF KHANAPUR PS CRIME NO.141/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF X ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 489B, 489C OF THE IPC AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2638 CRL.P No. 103221 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice on behalf of Respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 489B and 499C of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution alleges that Accused Nos. 1 and 2, fully aware that the seized currency comprised counterfeit notes, intended to use them unlawfully. On 01.07.2019, after refueling the seized Scorpio car, they misrepresented the counterfeit notes as genuine and attempted to circulate them. On the same day, they circulated the counterfeit notes at a supermarket in Khanapur by representing them as original currency. 4. On 07.07.2019, Accused No.2, after receiving the counterfeit notes, attempted to circulate them. Accused No.1 was intercepted while traveling on a Hero Honda Splendor vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Accused No.1 is implicated solely on the basis of the confession of the co-accused, Accused No.2, who was allegedly apprehended while transporting counterfeit notes on a motorcycle. In his confession, the co-accused stated that the counterfeit notes had been provided by Accused No.1 on a commission basis. In the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2638 CRL.P No. 103221 of 2024 absence of corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner, relying solely on this confession—which is inadmissible in law—to prosecute the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 6. In response, the learned AGA for the State submitted that the charge-sheet material, in conjunction with the confession of the co-accused, clearly established that Accused No.1 was involved in the circulation of counterfeit notes. He further stated that the veracity of the allegations could be fully examined at trial and should not be pre-judged in this petition, thereby seeking the dismissal of the petition. 7. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 8. It is admitted that Accused No.2, apprehended while traveling on a motorcycle, allegedly confessed that the counterfeit currency notes seized from him were handed over by Accused No.1 on a commission basis. However, apart from the co- accused’s confession, there is no corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. 9. The Apex Court, in Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2008) 1 SCC 1, at Paras 61–63, held that a Court should not begin its inquiry with the confession of a co-accused. Instead, it must first consider other evidence presented by the prosecution. Only after forming an opinion regarding the quality and effect of such evidence is it permissible to refer to the co-accused’s confession to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2638 CRL.P No. 103221 of 2024 lend assurance to the conclusion of guilt that the judicial mind is inclined to reach. This principle has consistently been followed, except where a specific statutory provision renders a co-accused’s confession admissible against another accused. “As elucidated by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Lalit Mohan Chuckerbutty, such a confession may only be used to “lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused.” Similarly, as stated by Reilly, J. in Periyaswami Moopan, In re, “the provision goes no further than this—where there is evidence against the co- accused sufficient, if believed, to support his conviction, then the kind of confession described in Section 30 may be thrown into the scale as an additional reason for believing that evidence.” “Translating these observations into practical terms, the proper approach in a case of this nature is to first consider the evidence against the accused without the aid of the confession. If, on its own, the evidence is capable of sustaining a conviction, then the confession need not be relied upon. However, if the Judge is reluctant to base a conviction solely on the other evidence, the confession may be admitted only to lend assurance to that evidence and fortify the Judge’s belief in its probative value”. “With respect to the corroboration of accomplices and approvers, it is well established that a co-accused who confesses is naturally deemed an accomplice. The risk of relying on one accomplice’s testimony to corroborate another has been repeatedly cautioned against. This risk is not diminished when the evidence is not given under oath and cannot be subjected to cross-examination. Prudence, therefore, demands that the same caution be exercised with any witness whose evidentiary value is questionable. As noted by numerous Judges in India, the tendency to include the innocent with the guilty is a significant concern, and the only safeguard against this is the insistence on independent evidence implicating each accused”. 10. Therefore, the confessional statement of a co-accused cannot, by itself, be treated as substantive evidence against - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2638 CRL.P No. 103221 of 2024 another co-accused. In the absence of any corroborative material, it cannot be used to substantiate the charges against the petitioner. Consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner on this basis would amount to an abuse of the process of law, especially since the co-accused’s confession is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings in Sessions case No.16/2021 pending on the file of Xth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi is hereby quashed insofar it relates to accused No.1. iii. The trial court to proceed against accused No.2, in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in this order and the observation made if any is only for the purpose of present petition. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8