9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence Under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant are liable to be set aside. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/accused Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges - Appeal allowed. - Hon'ble Judges Madan B. Lokur and C. Nagappan, JJ. For the Appellant : Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., S.J. Amith and Vipin Gupta, Advs. For the Respondents : V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. JUDGMENT C. Nagappan, J. 1. This ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. A trap was organized and PW2 Sridhar and PW3 Kumaraswamy, Government servants, were directed to be present as panch witnesses. PW1 Ramesh produced a sum of Rs. 500/- i.e. five currency notes of Rs. 100/- each and the numbers of the said currency notes were recorded in the presence of panch witnesses and the currency notes got smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The complainant Ramesh took the powder smeared notes and went along with PW3 Kumaraswamy to the house of the Appellant/accused. PW2 Sridhar and PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar stood outside the said house. The accused was watching T.V. inside the room and on seeing them, he asked PW1 Ramesh as to whether he has brought what he had asked and PW1 Ramesh answered yes and gave the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sentenced him as stated above. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 4. We heard Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent State. 5. PW1 Ramesh, the complainant did not support the prosecution case. He disowned making the complaint in Exh.P1 and stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused had not demanded anything from him and he did not know what is written in Exh.P1 and the police have not recorded his statement in respect to this case. He was, therefore, declared hostile. However, PW3 Kumaraswamy, panch witness has testified that after being summoned by PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar on 18.2.2000, the contents of E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Exhibit P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence Under Section 7. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
