LexC. RONALD & ANR. versus STATE, U.T. OF ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 9 S.C.R. 1067 "' I > C. RONALD & ANR. A v. STATE, U.T. OF ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS (Criminal Appeal No(s). 749 of 2005) lW AUGUST 10, 2011 B [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 386(a) - Power of the appellate court to reverse an order of acquittal - c Circulation of fake currency notes - Two accused - Appellant No.1-accused searched by S.I. and fake currency notes of Rs. )' 100 denomination recovered from his chest pocket - Fake notes also recovered from the house of appellant no. 1 - Trial court acquitted the accused-appellants, but the High Court D reversed that judgment and convicted them - On appeal, held: Since the language of s.386(a) Cr.P.C. is clear and it places no restrictions on the power of the appellate court to convert an order of acquittal into a conviction, one cannot place restrictions on this power for that would really be amending E the statute - On facts, sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt • - Making or circulating fake currency is a serious offence - No reason to take a lenient view in the matter - However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, while upholding the F conviction of the appellants, the period of his sentence reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment. Interpretation of Statutes - Held: Where the words are clear, there is no scope for the Court to innovate or take upon .. ·~ itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions. G Witness - Police witness - Held: No principle of law that a statement made in court by a police personnel has to be disbelieved - Every statement of a policeman cannot be 1067 H 1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R. A assumed to be necessarily false. Precedent - Held: Judgment of a court of law should not be read as a Euclid's theorem nor as a provision in a statute. Bharat Petroleum Corporation vs. N.R. Vairamani AIR B 2004 S.C. 4778: 2004 (4) Siuppl. SCR 923; Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Cflaudhary Devi Lal University J.T. 2008 (8) S.C. 621: 2008 (13) SCR 477; \lemareddy Kumaraswamyreddy & Anr. vs. State of A.P. JT 2CI06 (2) 361; Union of India & Anr. vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal '1992 Supp (1) SCC 323; Sanwat C Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 715: 1961 SCR 120 and Salim Zia vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 391: 1979 (2) SCR 394 - relied on. Shingara Singh vs. State' of Haryana (2003) 12 SCC 758 0 - referred to. E F Case Law Reference: (2003) 12 sec 758 referred to 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 9~!3 relied on 2008 (13) SCR 477 relied on JT 2006 (2) 361 relied on 1992 Supp (1) sec 323 relied on 1961 SCR 120 relied on 1979 (2) SCR 394 relied on Para 7 Para 9 Para 9 Para 11 Para 12 Para 15 Para 16 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JIJRISDICTION: Criminal Appeal G No. 749 of 2005. H From the Judgment & Order dated 01.10.2004 of the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in Criminal Appeal No. 031 of 2002. I < • • C. RONALD & ANR. v. STATE, U.T. OF ANDAMAN & 1069 NICOBAR ISLANDS ) ., Shanty Bhushan, K.R. Sasiprabhu, M.K. Sreegesh, A Somiran Sharma for the Appellants. T.S. Doabia, Ashok Bhan, R.K. Rathore, Sunita Sharma, Rashmi Malhotra, D.S. Mahra for the Respondent. ., B The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned c judgment dated 01.10.2004 passed by the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2002. _) 3. The facts have been set out in great detail in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same D here except wherever necessary. 4. It appears that on 26.11.1997 Sub Inspector Abdul Salam received a secret information that in the evening of 25.11.1997 C. Ronald, appellant No. 1 herein, participated in E a gambling. Some hundred rupees notes which were sought to be used by him in the gambling were not accepted by the ~ co-gamblers on the ground that they were fake, whereafter Ronald left the place. He was searched by S.I. Abdul Salam and fake currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination were F recovered from his chest pocket. Panchnama was prepared and he was arrested. During interrogation Ronald disclosed the name of other co-accused. One Arun disclosed the name of R. Anil Kumar, appellant No. 2 herein. 5. Disclosures made by Arun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.