Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel, was implicated in a case involving the possession and sale of counterfeit Saudi Arabian Riyal currency notes. The FIR dated 10.04.1996 alleged that the appellant, along with three other accused, was involved in a conspiracy to sell fake currency notes as genuine. The police recovered 88 counterfeit notes of 500 Riyal denomination from the co-accused near a public road. During investigation, the co-accused allegedly stated that they had obtained the notes from the appellant. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Gujarat High Court seeking discharge from offences under Sections 489B and 489C IPC, which was dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides. The appellant's counsel contended that the High Court erroneously believed that recovery was from the appellant's residence, whereas it was from a public road, and that there was no material other than the co-accused's statements to implicate the appellant. The respondent argued that there was sufficient prima facie evidence. The Supreme Court examined the FIR and the High Court's reasoning. It noted that the FIR clearly stated that the co-accused mentioned the appellant's name and that the appellant was allegedly involved in the transaction. The court also observed that the High Court had not solely relied on the co-accused's statements but also on the recovery of notes and other evidence. The Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing charges, the court need only see if there is a prima facie case, and that the High Court was correct in not interfering under Section 482 CrPC. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Discharge - The High Court refused to quash proceedings against the appellant accused of possessing and selling counterfeit Saudi Riyal notes, holding that there was prima facie evidence including recovery of notes and statements of co-accused, and that the matter should be decided at trial (Paras 1-8). B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 489B and 489C - Counterfeit Currency - Prima Facie Case - The court found that the FIR and chargesheet contained allegations that the appellant was involved in a conspiracy to sell fake currency, and that recovery of notes from the spot and statements of co-accused indicated his involvement, sufficient to proceed to trial (Paras 3-8). C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 30 - Confession of Co-accused - Use at Framing of Charges - The court noted that while a confession of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for framing charges, it can be considered if there is other evidence; here, other evidence existed, so the High Court's refusal to discharge was upheld (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking discharge from offences under Sections 489B and 489C IPC, and whether the appellant can be proceeded against solely on the basis of co-accused statements.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC
- discharge
- prima facie case
- statement of co-accused
- Section 30 Evidence Act
- Sections 489B and 489C IPC
