Conviction Cannot Stand Due to Non-Compliance with Mandatory Procedural Requirements: Kerala High Court Acquits Accused in Counterfeit Currency Case

Justice P.G. Ajithkumar emphasizes the necessity for strict adherence to procedural norms under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and proper framing of charges.

The Kerala High Court has overturned the convictions of six individuals involved in a counterfeit currency case, citing significant procedural lapses and inadequacies in the framing of charges. The judgment delivered by Justice P.G. Ajithkumar underscores the necessity for strict adherence to legal procedures in criminal trials, particularly under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The appellants, P.P. Chandran, M.J. Joseph alias Karate Joseph, S. Ravi alias Siveli Ravi, P.C. Philip alias Kunhu, and Sunny Mathew alias Sunny, were charged with the possession and trafficking of counterfeit currency notes under Sections 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution’s case was built on the testimonies of police officers and the seizure of counterfeit notes during various searches. Despite the trial court’s conviction based on the evidence presented, the High Court found several procedural flaws warranting acquittal.

Credibility of Police Testimonies:

The High Court reaffirmed the principle that police testimonies should be treated on par with other witnesses unless specific grounds exist to doubt their credibility. Justice Ajithkumar referenced the Supreme Court’s stance from Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), stating, “The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons, and it is not proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds.”

Procedural Lapses under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.:

A critical aspect of the judgment was the procedural lapses during the examination of the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The court noted the failure to specifically question the appellants regarding key evidence, including Ext.P39, the analysis report confirming the counterfeit nature of the currency notes. This omission was deemed a significant procedural lapse, undermining the fairness of the trial. Justice Ajithkumar cited Umashankar v. State of Chhattisgarh, emphasizing, “If any specific question about the currency notes being fake or counterfeit was not put to the accused in the examination under Section 313 of the Code, that is fatal to the prosecution.”

Inadequate Framing of Charges:

The judgment also highlighted deficiencies in the framing of charges against the accused. The charge sheet was found to be an omnibus one, failing to satisfy the requirements under Sections 212 and 213 of the Cr.P.C. Justice Ajithkumar observed, “The charge does not satisfy the requirement of Section 212 and 213 of the Code,” further complicating the accused’s ability to mount an effective defense.

Justice Ajithkumar remarked, “The failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements and the inadequately framed charges fundamentally vitiate the trial process, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.”

The Kerala High Court’s decision to acquit the appellants in this counterfeit currency case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair trials and adherence to procedural norms. By highlighting critical lapses in legal processes, this judgment serves as a significant reminder of the importance of procedural compliance in criminal justice. The acquittal is expected to influence future cases, reinforcing the need for meticulous adherence to legal procedures to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.

Date of Decision: 20^th June 2024

P.P. Chandran VS State of Kerala