The State of Kerala (Police) vs Madhu Advocate - SETHUMOHAN M, Ashly George Mathew — 683/2013

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 489(B) and C, 34. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED U/S 235 CR.PC on 26th March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: KLPT010021612013

Filing Number

2009/2013

Filing Date

31-Dec-2013

Registration No

683/2013

Registration Date

31-Dec-2013

Court

District Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pathanamthitta

Judge

5-Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

Decision Date

26-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED U/S 235 CR.PC

Last updated 30-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

324

Police Station

Adoor Police Station

Year

2006

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 489(B) and C, 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Kerala (Police)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Madhu Advocate - SETHUMOHAN M, Ashly George Mathew

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary The Additional Sessions Court acquitted accused Madhu (A2) of counterfeiting currency charges under IPC sections 489-B and 489-C. The court found critical defects in the prosecution's case: counterfeit notes allegedly seized from the accused were neither properly packed nor sealed, creating risk of manipulation; the investigating officer's testimony lacked credibility regarding custody; and key witness accounts were inconsistent or unreliable. Applying the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the court held the prosecution failed to establish its case and awarded the benefit of doubt to the accused, setting him at liberty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  5. 19-Mar-2026

    For hearing under section 232 CRPC

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    For Examination of Witness

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  8. 26-Feb-2026

    Call on

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  9. 19-Feb-2026

    Issue Bailable Warrant

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  10. 12-Feb-2026

    For Examination of Witness

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  11. 04-Feb-2026

    Call on

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  12. 03-Feb-2026

    For Examination of Witness

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  13. 02-Feb-2026

    For Examination of Witness

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  14. 16-Dec-2025

    For Examination of Witness

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  15. 05-Dec-2025

    Call on

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  16. 10-Nov-2025

    Hearing on Charge

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  17. 17-Oct-2025

    For framing charge

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  18. 15-Oct-2025

    For reports

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  19. 27-Sep-2025

    For reports

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge-II, Pta.

  20. 19-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 31-Dec-2013

    Case filed

    Registration No. 683/2013

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Sessions Court acquitted accused Madhu (A2) of counterfeiting currency charges under IPC sections 489-B and 489-C. The court found critical defects in the prosecution's case: counterfeit notes allegedly seized from the accused were neither properly packed nor sealed, creating risk of manipulation; the investigating officer's testimony lacked credibility regarding custody; and key witness accounts were inconsistent or unreliable. Applying the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the court held the prosecution failed to establish its case and awarded the benefit of doubt to the accused, setting him at liberty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case