Delhi District Court
State vs Salim on 27 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MR. HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC- 01), SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
[Date of Judgment: 27.01.2026]
SC No.: 47/2018
CNR No.: DLST010004092018
FIR No.: 523/2017
Police Station: Saket
u/Section: 489B, 489C, 489D, IPC, 1860
Complainant: STATE
Represented by - Mr. Santosh Kumar, Addl. Public
Prosecutor.
Accused Person: SALIM (A1)
S/o Abdul Latif
Represented by - Mr. Athar Alam, Ms. Sumbul Athar,
Ms. Sonam Saifi, Mhd. Faiz and Mr.
Ahmad Saleem, Advocates.
Date of offence: 16/17.10.2017
Date of FIR: 17.10.2017
Date of chargesheet: 12.01.2018
Date of framing of charges: 10.05.2018
Date of commencement of evidence: 25.07.2018
Date of judgment reserved: 06.12.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 27.01.2026
Date of the sentencing order, if any: -
SC No. 47/2018
State v. Salim Page No. 1/36
JUDGMENT
27.01.2026
1. Salim is accused of being an utterer, who has stood trial before the Court of Sessions arising out of FIR No. 523 dated 17.10.2017 (subject FIR) registered at police station Saket for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 489B, 489C and 489D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. The facts of the case as traced from the subject FIR in brief are that on 16.10.2017 at around 10:50 P.M., Salim approached a vendor, Brijesh, who had set up a stall of utensils at Som Bazaar (Monday Market), Sector 5, Pushp Vihar, near NBCC Plaza, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Saket.
3. Salim inquired about the price of a dabba from Brijesh. Brijesh told Salim that one dabba costs ₹80. Salim asked Brijesh to give two dabbas and handed over two ₹100 currency notes in exchange. Brijesh realized that the currency notes handed over by Salim appear to be fake. The moment Brijesh told Salim that the currency notes are fake, Salim tried to run away. On hearing Brijesh' shouts, people standing around caught hold of Salim and started to beat him up.
4. Salim in his possession had one black colour bag. On opening of the bag, it was found to contain currency notes of ₹50 and ₹100 denomination. At this moment, a woman named, Neelam told Brijesh while looking at Salim that he is the same man, who purchased clothes from her shop and paid her ₹1800 in the denomination of ₹50 and ₹100.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 2/365. SI Rakesh Kumar chaperoned with HC Visram arrived at the scene, near NBCC Plaza, Sector - 5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi and amidst the crowd of people met the complainant, Brijesh. Brijesh told the police officials by pointing towards Salim that he purchased steel utensils from him using two fake, currency notes of ₹100 bearing Nos. 7FW330475, 2EK715817. Neelam produced ₹1800 in total comprising ten currency notes of ₹50 denomination and thirteen currency notes of ₹100 denomination.
6. Out of the ten currency notes of ₹50 denomination, five currency notes had similar No. 5AE79296, three currency notes had similar No. 5AE579297 and two currency notes had similar No. 5AE579298.
7. Whereas, out of the thirteen currency notes of ₹100 denomination, four currency notes had similar No. 2EK715817, three currency notes had similar No. 2EK715818, four currency notes had similar No. 7FW330475, four currency notes had similar No. 1AA296960 and remainder two currency notes had similar No. 2FW330475. SI Rakesh Kumar took possession and seized the aforesaid currency notes.
8. On inspection of the black colour bag found in the possession of Salim, SI Rakesh Kumar found ₹11,250/- in total, comprising of ninety five currency notes of ₹100 denomination and thirty five currency notes of ₹50 denomination.
9. Out of the ninety five currency notes of ₹100 denomination, thirty two currency notes had similar No. 7FW330475, twenty eight currency notes had similar No. 2EK715817, twenty currency notes had SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 3/36 similar No. 1AA296960, and fifteen currency notes had similar No. 2EK715818. SI Rakesh Kumar also took possession of the aforesaid ninety five currency notes in a plastic box and seized the same.
10. Whereas out of the thirty five currency notes of ₹50 denomination, fifteen currency notes had similar No. 1AA296960, ten currency notes had similar No. 5AE579297, and the remainder ten currency notes had similar No. 5AE579299. SI Rakesh Kumar also took possession of the aforesaid thirty five currency notes in a plastic box and seized the same.
11. Salim was taken in custody and arrested on 17.10.2017. On production of Salim before the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, one day police custody was granted for recovery of equipment used in commission of crime, fake currency notes.
12. Since 18.10.2017 until 28.11.2018, Salim remained in judicial custody. On 12.01.2018, the chargesheet in the subject FIR was filed by the IO/SI, Rakesh Kumar before the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. With the alleged offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, on 12.01.2018 itself the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
13. On 10.05.2018, the charges for commission of offences punishable under Section 489B, 489C and 489D, IPC were framed against Salim. The trial commenced on 25.07.2018. Salim was enlarged on bail on 28.11.2018 vide order dated 27.11.2018.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 4/3614. By way of supplementary chargesheet dated 28.11.2018, the laboratory examination report bearing No. RFSL(CHP)2017/D-1404 dated 27.03.2018 of Anurag Sharma, Asstt. Director (Documents), RFSL, Govt. NCT of Delhi, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi was filed in accordance with law.
Prosecution Evidence
15. To bring home the guilt of Salim, prosecution examined nine witnesses in total.1 Out of the nine prosecution witnesses, two were eye witnesses (inclusive of the complainant), one expert witness and six police witnesses.
16. ASI, Kailash Chand (PW-1) was examined on 25.07.2018, who testified that on the intervening night of October 16-17, 2017, he was posted as duty officer at police station, Saket with duty hours being 1200-0800Hrs. At around 0100Hrs, SI Rakesh Kumar handed over rukka to him. On the basis of the rukka the computer operator registered the FIR No. 523/2017 (subject FIR) and after making necessary endorsement on the rukka (Ex.PW-1/B), he handed over the original subject FIR (Ex.PW-1/A) along with rukka to SI Rakesh Kumar. He also testified that the certificate (Ex.PW-1/C) under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) vouching for the authenticity and genuineness of the computer generated subject FIR was also prepared by him.
1See Form-C below.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 5/3617. As per the prosecution's version, Brijesh (PW-2) was the complainant, who as per the prosecution caught the utterance of accused, Salim using two counterfeit currency notes of ₹100 denomination for purchase of utensils from his vend at Som Bazaar. Brijesh (PW-2), the complainant and a utensil vendor, testified that on October 16, 2017, a customer wearing a helmet purchased two steel jars from his stall using two counterfeit ₹100 notes. While Brijesh initially noticed the customer being apprehended by the public and later handed over the two fake notes to the police, he was declared 'hostile' witness after failing to identify the accused, Salim, in the courtroom and denying several key parts of his previous statement.
18. Specifically, he denied witnessing the accused's arrest, seeing the police recover a bag containing more counterfeit currency, or seeing the seizure of items from another vendor named Neelam, despite admitting that his signatures appeared on the corresponding arrest and seizure memos. Ultimately, while Brijesh admitted that police recovered ₹11,250 in fake notes from the accused's bag in his presence, he denied the prosecution's suggestion that he was intentionally protecting Salim by withholding the truth.
19. Neelam (PW3), a weekly market vendor, testified that on 16.10.2017, police officials brought an individual to her shop and pressured her to falsely state that he had circulated fake currency there, a claim she denied by asserting the person had never purchased anything from her. During her cross-examination after being declared 'hostile', she consistently refuted the prosecution's narrative, denying SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 6/36 that the accused, Salim, had purchased garments from her with ₹1,800 in counterfeit notes or that she had witnessed the seizure of any fake currency or items in the presence of the other witness, Brijesh.
20. Neelam further alleged that she was forcibly taken to the police station and coerced into signing a document without it being read to her, maintaining that she never handed over any counterfeit notes to the police and rejecting suggestions that she had been won over by the accused to depose falsely.
21. HC Puran Mal (PW4) testified that on 16.10.2017 he was posted as duty officer at police station Saket with the duty hours of 1600Hrs to 0000Hrs. He received information from PCR with regard to arrest of one person, who was circulating fake currency notes and was apprehended near NBCC Plaza, Saket. He stated that he recorded the said information in the daily diary register vide DD No. 66A (Ex.PW4/A)(OSR). Thereafter, he forwarded the copy of the aforesaid DD No. 66A to SI Rakesh Kumar for further proceedings and also informed him telephonically.
22. HC Visram (PW5) testified that on 16.10.2017, while on emergency duty with SI Rakesh Kumar, he responded to a call near NBCC Plaza where he found the accused, Salim, apprehended by the public with the help of complainants, Brijesh and Neelam. According to Visram, both complainants reported that Salim had purchased items from their shops using counterfeit currency notes, and a subsequent SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 7/36 check of the accused's bag revealed additional fake currency notes, utensils, and ladies' garments.
23. Although the prosecution initially cross-examined Visram because he could not recall all details due to the lapse of time, he eventually confirmed the seizure of two fake ₹100 currency notes from Brijesh, ₹1,800 in fake currency notes from Neelam, and ₹11,250 currency notes found in Salim's bag. He further detailed a follow-up raid at Salim's residence in Dakshinpuri the next day, which led to the recovery of approximately ₹7,40,000 in counterfeit currency notes, a Dell laptop, and Canon and Epson printers allegedly used for forgery.
24. During cross-examination, Visram admitted that no independent witnesses or neighbours were joined during the late-night house search to avoid disturbing them, and he identified the nephew of the accused as the only other person present at the time. Despite suggestions from the defence that the evidence was planted or that he was deposing falsely to implicate Salim, Visram stood by the recovery proceedings and successfully identified the seized currency bundles, printers, and utensils in courtroom.
25. Ct. Rajesh Kumar (PW6) testified that on 29.12.2017 he was posted at police station Saket and he collected sealed pullandas along with road certificate from Moharrir Head Constable, Malkhana [MHC(M)], police station Saket for depositing the same with Regional Forensics Science Laboratory (RFSL), Chanakyapuri New Delhi. He testified that after handing over pullandas, he returned to the police SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 8/36 station and gave the acknowledgment slip to MHC(M). He testified that during the time, the case property was in his possession, the same remained intact and was not tampered.
26. SI Rajdeep (PW7) testified that on 17.10.2017, he joined the investigation while the accused, Salim, was on police custody remand and accompanied SI Rakesh and HC Visram to Salim's residence in Dakshinpuri. He described how the accused led them to a one-room ground-floor set and pointed out an iron trunk containing sixty seven bundles of fake ₹100 notes and fourteen bundles of fake ₹50 notes. Rajdeep further detailed the recovery of specific 'master' currency notes (eight ₹100 notes and sixteen ₹50 notes) pasted on white paper sheets to show both front and back sides, which the accused allegedly used to multiply counterfeit currency through printing.
27. SI Rajdeep (PW7) identified several items of case property in courtroom, including a Dell laptop, Canon and Epson printers, four rims of A4 size paper, and a total of 8,646 counterfeit notes - originally estimated at ₹7,40,000. During cross-examination, Rajdeep admitted that no independent neighbours were joined in the search, no photographs were taken of the items before seizure, and only a 13-14 year-old relative was present at the house, who had recently arrived from the village. He denied suggestions that the recovery was planted, that the accused was falsely implicated to protect a larger gang, or that the accused Salim's alleged mental condition of forgetfulness would have prevented him from committing the crime.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 9/3628. Expert witness, Anurag Sharma (PW9), an Assistant Director at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL/RFSL), testified that on 29.12.2017, he received 8,646 currency notes of ₹50 and ₹100 denominations from PS Saket in sealed envelopes for forensic examination. Using scientific instruments like the Docubox HD and various magnifying glasses, he conducted a thorough analysis and authored a detailed three-page report (Ex.PW9/A) dated 27.03.2018. His findings confirmed that the vast majority of the notes--specifically those marked X1 to X4541, X4558 to X8612, and X8637 to X8653-- were counterfeit.
29. Regarding a small subset of notes (X8613 to X8636) which were firmly pasted onto plain sheets, he noted that no signs of counterfeiting were observed on their visible side, though he clarified that only one side of these specific notes could be examined due to how they were mounted. During his testimony across two sessions in the month of October 2023 and January 2024, he identified the 8,646 notes produced in courtroom, as the same items he had examined. On cross- examination, Sharma defended his professional training and the integrity of his report, denying defence suggestions that he had prepared a false report in connivance with the investigating officer or that there was an improper delay in delivering his findings.
30. SI Rakesh Kumar (PW8), the investigating officer, testified that on 16.10.2017, he responded to a PCR call near NBCC Plaza, Saket, where he met the complainants Brijesh and Neelam, who had already apprehended the accused, Salim. He recorded their statements and SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 10/36 prepared the site plan, noting that Salim had allegedly used counterfeit ₹100 notes to purchase utensils and clothing.
31. Following the arrest and a disclosure statement from the accused, SI Rakesh obtained police custody remand and led a team to Salim's residence in Dakshinpuri on 17.10.2017. During the raid, he seized a Dell laptop, two printers of Canon and Epson make, and four rims of paper allegedly used for counterfeiting. He also recovered approximately ₹7,40,000 in fake currency notes along with several 'master' notes (eight ₹100 notes and sixteen ₹50 notes) that were found pasted onto white sheets to facilitate the printing process. In the courtroom, he identified the seized electronics, the large volume of counterfeit currency--noting the notes were sticking together and difficult to count--and the utensils and garments recovered during the initial investigation.
32. During a lengthy cross-examination conducted over several sessions, SI Rakesh defended the integrity of his investigation against suggestions that the evidence was planted or that he had failed to arrest the real culprits. He clarified that the statement Neelam gave to the police under Section 161 CrPC was the correct version, despite her later claim in the courtroom that she was coerced. He admitted that while a 12-year-old relative was present during the house raid, he did not record the child's statement as the boy had only recently arrived from his village. SI Rakesh also acknowledged that he did not join any independent neighbours as witnesses during the late-night recovery, explaining that he did not wish to disturb them and that many people SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 11/36 were unwilling to come forward. He denied any knowledge of Salim suffering from mental illness or forgetfulness that would have prevented him from operating the counterfeiting equipment alone, and he maintained that his investigation followed proper legal procedures, including depositing all seized items in the malkhana and sending the seized currency notes for forensic analysis.
Statement of Accused
33. Salim in his statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) gave the usual and predictable responses of incriminating evidence against him being incorrect and he has been falsely implicated in the subject FIR. However, Salim did state that two material witnesses, Brijesh (PW2) and Neelam (PW3) have not deposed against him.
Defence Evidence
34. Salim did not lead any evidence in his defence.
Submissions by the Counsels
35. Mr. Santosh Kumar learned APP opened the arguments for the prosecution by stating that the case at hand is an open and shut case, as accused Salim was caught red handed using fake currency notes at Som Bazaar while purchasing items from two different vendors, Brijesh and Neelam. Brijesh called the PCR vide DD No. 66A saying nakli notes and the person using them has been apprehended at the spot. The learned APP further submitted that on arrival of the police personal at the sport, other than fake, counterfeit notes used by accused, Salim, the SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 12/36 police even found fake, counterfeit currency notes to the tune of ₹11,250 in possession of accused, Salim.
36. The learned APP submitted that though Brijesh (PW-2) partly turned hostile and Neelam (PW-3) turned hostile regarding the identity of the accused, Salim. The learned APP further submitted that however, there is substantial evidence that the accused Salim was caught using forged and counterfeit currency notes in an open market at night time and thus the commission of offence punishable under Section 489B, IPC is clearly made out against him.
37. The learned APP further submitted that during remand under police custody, the accused disclosed to the police and at the instance of the accused Salim police recovered incriminating counterfeit currency notes to the tune of ₹7,40,000 coupled with equipment viz., laptop, printers, and material such as paper sheets, original currency notes, whose serial numbers were found copied on the fake currency notes. The learned APP further submitted that the accused Salim used to work at printing agency/press. The learned APP further submitted that original currency notes pasted on paper, laptop, printers, paper rims were recovered from the residence of the accused.
38. Mr. Kumar learned APP further submitted that FSL examination report corroborates that the currency notes found in the possession and also at the residence of the accused, Salim were fake and the same clearly establishes the guilt of the accused, as the prosecution has successfully discharged the burden of proof.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 13/3639. Per contra, Mr. Athar Alam learned counsel for the accused submitted that no case against the accused Salim is made out, as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on all three counts. Mr. Alam unleashed his attack on the arguments advanced by the learned APP by submitting that the whole investigation undertaken by the police was tainted.
40. The learned counsel contended the submission of the learned APP that the prosecution has discharge its burden of proof. The learned counsel submitted that under no circumstances can it be said on the strength of planted evidence, tainted evidence and hostile witnesses that the prosecution has proved its case against accused Salim beyond reasonable doubt.
41. Mr. Alam submitted that lack of fairness in the investigation is writ large. The learned counsel read out the cross-examination of the IO, SI Rakesh Kumar. The learned counsel submitted that the police team visited the spot in a private car and did not inform their superior officers. The learned counsel further submitted that no independent witness was joined by the police at the time of raiding the house of the accused on 17.10.2017. The learned counsel further submitted that admittedly by the police witness at the house there was a teenager boy present, but the police did not care to record his statement or make him a witness to the recovery of alleged cash stash of ₹7,40,000. The learned counsel further submitted that the alleged recovery of laptop, two printers, paper rims does not prove anything because the police did not investigate properly SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 14/36 and/or verify the purchase of the laptop, printers and paper rims and tie the same to the guilt of accused.
42. The learned counsel further submitted that neither the landlord nor any neighbour was called by the police to join the investigation. The learned counsel submitted that the accused, Salim suffers from forgetfulness and the police miserably failed to conduct investigation in just and fair manner as no single man can pull off the alleged counterfeit currency operation and stash ₹7,40,000 at his residence.
43. Mr. Alam submitted that the highhandedness of police has come on record, as Neelam (PW-3) testified that she was made to sit at the police station until 0200Hrs. The learned counsel further submitted that to wipe off Neelam's (PW-3) testimony, the prosecution conveniently declared her 'hostile'.
44. The learned counsel for the accused, Salim further submitted that as per the testimony of Brijesh (PW-2), he never apprehended the accused at the spot on 16.10.2017. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the law report of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh 1994 INSC 96 to support his contention that the absence of independent witness has vitiated the fairness of investigation .
45. The learned counsel further submitted that the IO, SI Rakesh Kumar in a callous manner dealt with the subject FIR and did not conduct the investigation as per the procedure and established norms. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has examined Mr. Anurag Sharma, Asstt. Director (Document), FSL/RFSL, SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 15/36 GNCT, Delhi as an expert witness and tendered his report in evidence. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the law report of the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal 1999 INSC
393. Mr. Alam concluded his arguments on the note that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused, Salim be set free from the shackles of this trial and subject FIR.
46. Mr. Santosh Kumar learned APP rejoined his arguments and submitted that the investigation conducted by the police officials of police station Saket neither lacked fairness nor non-adherence to established procedure.
47. The learned APP further submitted that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the accused, Salim on the law report of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh 1994 INSC 96 is misplaced as that related to the case of offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
48. The learned APP with regard to the law report of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal 1999 INSC 393 submitted that there is no dispute that an expert is not a witness of fact. The learned APP further submitted that the report submitted by an expert does not automatically goes in an evidence and even an expert has to withstand the litmus test of cross-examination. The learned APP further submitted that in the case at hand, the expert witness' report corroborates the claim of the prosecution that the currency notes found in the possession were counterfeit.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 16/3649. The learned APP further submitted that the accused, Salim in his statement under Section 313 CrPC did not elicit, answer any question with regard to the incriminating evidence against him. The learned APP further submitted that the conduct of the accused speaks for itself as he never sought release of laptop, printers, mobile phone seized from his house and at the time of his arrest.
50. Mr. Santosh Kumar learned APP concluded his arguments on the note that the police witnesses are as reliable as any other witness and there has been no shortcoming in the investigation and the prosecution has discharged the burden of proof against the accused, Salim. To buttress his aforesaid submission the learned APP placed reliance upon the law report of the Apex Court in the case of Tahir v. State, (1996) 3 SCC 338, wherein it was observed that no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to the police force. The learned APP also placed reliance upon the law report of the Apex Court in the case of Aner Raja Khima v. State of Surashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217. The learned APP submitted that the accused be convicted on all three counts as charged by this Court.
Points for Determination
51. The questions posed to the Court for determination are as under:
(i) Whether the accused Salim on 16.10.2017 at Som Bazaar (Monday Market), Sector 5, Pushp Vihar, near NBCC Plaza, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Saket, by using ₹2,000 (₹200 + ₹1800), as genuine, forged, counterfeit currency notes and committed an offence punishable under Section 489B, IPC?SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 17/36
(ii) Whether the accused Salim on 16.10.2017 at Som Bazaar (Monday Market), Sector 5, Pushp Vihar, near NBCC Plaza, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Saket, was found in possession of ₹11,250/- forged, counterfeit currency notes and committed an offence punishable under Section 489C, IPC?
(iii) Whether the accused Salim on 17.10.2017 and prior to 17.10.2017 at House No. 20/151, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi, by making, possessing instruments, materials for forging, counterfeiting currency notes committed an offence punishable under Section 489D, IPC?
Analysis & Reasoning
52. Section 489A to 489D2 were added to the Penal Code under the caption, "Of Currency Notes and Bank Notes", by Currency Notes Forgery Act. 1899, in order to make better provisions for the protection of currency and bank notes against forgery - See G.V. Ramanaiah v. The Superintended of Central Jain, Rajahmundry & Ors. 1973 INSC
183.
53. Section 489A to 489E3, IPC deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes. The object of legislature in enacting these provisions is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency-notes and bank-notes. The currency notes are, despite of growing accustomedness to the credit cards system, unified payment interface (UPI) still the backbone of the commercial transactions by 2 Added by Act 12 of 1899, S.2.
3Section 489D was inserted by Act 6 of 1943 in the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 18/36multitudes in our country. But these provisions are not meant to punish unwary possessors or users.
54. The onus lies on the prosecution to prove circumstances which lead clearly, indubitably and irresistibly to the inference that the accused had the intention to foist on the notes on the public. Such intention can be proved by the collateral circumstances such as that the accused had palmed off such notes before, or that he was in possession of such and similar notes in such large numbers that his possession for any other purpose is inexplicable - See Section 21, Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act.
55. Section 28, IPC, defines the term 'counterfeit' as a person is said to "counterfeit" who cause one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced.4 It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact.
56. Where a person causes one thing to resemble another thing and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practice deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practiced - See K. Hashim v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 1 SCC 237.
4See Section 28, IPC SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 19/36
57. Section 489B, IPC, reads as under:
"489B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.--Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with 2 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
58. The essential ingredients of Section 489B, IPC are -
(i) Possession or trafficking: The person must sell to, buy from, receive from another, or otherwise traffic in or use as genuine any currency-note or bank-note.
(ii) Nature of the note: The currency-note or bank-note in question must be forged or counterfeit.
(iii) Knowledge or reason to believe: The person must know or have reason to believe that the currency-note or bank-note is forged or counterfeit at the time of the act.
59. The punishment for Section 489B, IPC is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also liable to fine.
60. In summary, Section 489B, IPC targets anyone who, with knowledge or reason to believe in its falsity, uses or traffics in forged or counterfeit currency or bank-notes as if they were genuine.
61. Though, Brijesh (PW-2) was cited as the complainant and star witness of the prosecution. However, Brijesh has not supported the case SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 20/36 of the prosecution. Brijesh (PW-2) was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP). During this cross-examination, Brijesh denied or contradicted several points from his initial statement to the police (Ex.PW2/A). Brijesh has denied occurrence of key events, such as he denied telling the police that two currency notes of ₹100 denomination were found to be fake upon checking or that he made noise that caused the accused Salim to try and run away.
62. Brijesh (PW-2) also denied specific details from the purported statement (Ex.PW2/A). He denied telling the police that the accused, Salim, had a black bag containing ₹50 and ₹100 denomination fake currency notes. He denied that a lady named Neelam informed him that accused Salim had bought clothes from her shop and paid with ₹1800 worth of fake currency notes. He denied naming the accused as Salim to the police.
63. On seeing the accused Salim in the courtroom, Brijesh denied that he was the person who handed over the fake currency notes. He also denied that the IO arrested Salim in his presence. The very identity and arrest of accused Salim from the crime scene has been denied by Brijesh.
64. The Court finds that the testimony of Brijesh (PW2) is not credible and cannot be relied upon as while admitting his signature on several seizure memos, statement and other documents, he denied numerous actions took place in his presence. Brijesh denied recording SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 21/36 of the entire statement (Ex.PW2/A) but admitted signing it. Brijesh admitted his signature on the arrest memo (Ex.PW2/C) but denied arrest of accused Salim in his presence. Brijesh has admitted his signature on the personal search memo of accused Salim, but denied IO conducting the personal search of accused Salim in his presence. Similarly, Brijesh has admitted his signatures on the various seizure memos, but he has outrightly denied the seizure of undergarments purchased from Neelam's shop, seizure of five steel utensils and seizure of two steel utensils purchased by accused Salim from his shop.
65. In short, Brijesh has not supported the case of the prosecution on the aspects of identification, apprehension and arrest, seizure of utensils, recovery of black bag and involvement of Neelam. The reliability of Brijesh's (PW-2) testimony is highly questionable due to numerous contradictions and denials made during his cross-examination by the prosecution, which led to him being declared a hostile witness.
66. Further, as per the prosecution's case, the accused prior to purchasing utensils from Birjesh purchased clothes from Neelam (PW-
3) for a sum of ₹1800 allegedly using the fake currency notes. Both the witnesses, Brijesh (PW-2) and Neelam (PW-3) have not supported the case of the prosecution.
67. The charge of "using" or "trafficking" relies heavily on proving the specific transactions where the accused allegedly bought utensils and clothes using fake notes. This part of the case has collapsed. There is complete failure of identification of accused. The primary SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 22/36 complainant, Brijesh (PW-2), failed to identify the accused Salim in Court, stating the customer was wearing a helmet and it was dark. The second prosecution witness, Neelam (PW-3) on this aspect has completely denied that the accused ever came to her shop or that she gave any statement to the police.
68. Without the direct testimony of the victims confirming that the accused, Salim handed over fake notes to them as genuine, the specific act of 'using' (uttering) is not proved. It is apparent nay evident that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused Salim under Section 489B IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
69. The prosecution story indicting the accused Salim also stands on the limb that not only large quantity of counterfeit currency of ₹11,250 was recovered from the black bag of accused Salim on 16.10.2017 at the spot itself, but also huge stash of fake currency notes to the tune of ₹7,40,000 was found from his residence on 17.10.2017.
70. Section 489C, IPC, reads as under:
"489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.--Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
71. Section 489C, IPC deals with the possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. The key ingredients of Section 489C are as below -
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 23/36(i) Possession: The accused must be in possession of any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note.
(ii) Knowledge or reason to believe: The accused must know or have reason to believe that the currency note or bank note is forged or counterfeit.
(iii) Intention to use as genuine: The possession must be with the intention to use the same as genuine, or that it may be used as genuine.
72. Therefore, to constitute an offence under Section 489C, it must be proved that a person was found in possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes, knowing or having reason to believe them to be forged or counterfeit, and intending to use them as genuine or that they may be used as genuine.
73. The Apex Court in the case of Umashankar Vs State of Chhattisgarh 2001 INSC 488 dealt with the interpretation and application of Sections 489B and 489C, IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Umashankar, who had been convicted under Sections 489B and 489C, IPC for using and possessing fake currency notes. The core finding of the Supreme Court was that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite mens rea (guilty mind) for the offences.
74. The facts of the case were that the appellant, Umashankar was charged after he paid a fake ₹100 note for ₹5 worth of mangoes, and SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 24/36 police subsequently recovered 13 more fake notes, as well as materials like papers, refills, and scissors, from his house.
75. The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 489B and 489C, acquitting him under Section 489A. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence. The Apex Court found that no material was brought on record to show that the 18-year-old appellant had the requisite mens rea.
76. The Apex Court held that the mens rea for offences under both Section 489B (Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency or bank notes) and Section 489C (Possession of forged or counterfeit currency or bank notes) is "knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or bank notes to be forged or counterfeit".
77. Without the requisite mens rea, simply selling, buying, receiving, trafficking in, or using as genuine forged or counterfeit notes is not enough to constitute the offence punishable under Section 489C, IPC. In the absence of mens rea, possessing or even intending to use forged or counterfeit notes is not sufficient to make out a case of an offence punishable under Section 489C, IPC.
78. Under Section 489B, IPC the essential mens rea is knowing of having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit. Whereas, under Section 489C, IPC the essential mens rea is knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 25/3679. With the testimony of Brijesh (PW-2) and Neelam (PW-3) being unsupportive of prosecution's case, it is observed that the prosecution has led no evidence to prove the mens rea of accused Salim for commission of offences punishable under Section 489B and 489C, IPC.
80. Section 489D, IPC, reads as under:
"489D. Making or possessing instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency notes or bank-notes.--Whoever makes, or performs any part of the process of making, or buys or sells or disposes of, or has in his possession, any machinery, instrument or material for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for forging or counterfeiting any currency-note or bank-note, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
81. Section 489D, IPC, deals with the making or possessing instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes. The key ingredients of Section 489D, IPC are as below -
(i) Making or possessing instruments/materials: The person must make, perform any part of the process of making, buy, sell, dispose of, or possess any machinery, instrument, or material.
(ii) Purpose or knowledge: The act must be done for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for forging or counterfeiting any currency-note or bank-note.
(iii) Guilty mind: The person should have the mens rea, knowledge or reason to believe that such machinery, instrument, or material is intended to be used for the forgery or counterfeiting of currency-notes or bank-notes.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 26/3682. In summary, Section 489D targets anyone who makes, deals in, or possesses tools or materials, knowing or intending that they be used for the forgery or counterfeiting of currency or bank notes.
83. His Lordship Siddharth Mridul (As His Lordship then was) in Piyush Rastogi v State - Crl. Appeal No. 436/2009 date of decision 06.11.2013, upheld the conviction under Section 489C IPC for possessing counterfeit currency, finding police testimony and forensic reports credible regarding recovery of fake notes from the appellant at Welcome metro station, Delhi.
84. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi quashed the Section 489D conviction for insufficient proof that seized computer equipment belonged to or was used by Piyush Rastogi, to manufacture counterfeit notes, noting absence of demonstrable exhibits and documentary links. The sentence under Section 489D, IPC was set aside.
85. In the case at hand, the alleged offence of Section 489D against the accused Salim is based on the main plank of recovery of counterfeit currency notes of ₹7,40,000 along with equipment, laptop, two printers, paper rims, currency notes affixed on paper sheets. It is the case of the prosecution that during the remand under police custody, the accused led the police party to his residence and recovered the incriminating evidence against him.
86. As per the prosecution, the accused, Salim led the police raiding party to his residence and the recovery of huge stash of counterfeit SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 27/36 currency notes of ₹7,40,000 along with equipment, laptop computer, printers, paper rims were made at his behest. It has come in evidence that the accused resides at a tenanted premises, however, the IO, SI Rakesh Kumar testified that due to it being late, no public member could join the proceedings as panch witness. The answer given by the IO, SI Rakesh Kumar does not seem to be an acceptable one as the entire recovery has been made in the presence of police witnesses. The prosecution witness, SI Rajdeep Singh (PW-7) admitted that though one boy was present at the house but he was not joined as a witness. He further admitted that no photographs were taken of the items before seizure.
87. Further, the lack of investigating the landlord of accused, Salim and/or also not recording the statement of a teenager, a child of 12-14 years present at the house of the accused, Salim on 17.10.2017 does raise serious doubts about the fairness in the investigation and infirmity of evidence.
88. Another disturbing aspect, which has surfaced is that no evidence has been led as to how and in what manner could the accused have used a laptop, printers - colour and black and white, A4 bond paper rims to prepare, manufacture counterfeit currency notes. Merely, because the computer articles employed in manufacture of currency notes were seized from the residence of the accused does not conclusively establish that the same were procured or used for printing counterfeiting currency by the accused, Salim.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 28/3689. The Court finds that no investigation was undertaken with regard to ascertaining, who purchased the laptop, printers, paper rims. It is found that no investigation was done by the police to establish that the laptop belonged to the accused, Salim. It is also found neither any system logs of the laptop, printers found from the residence of the accused nor technical report, whether the laptop and printer(s) stood connected to each other at the time of recovery were adduced in evidence. It is an established practice that two different hardware in the present case, laptop and printer would have been connected (read as drivers installed) to ensure their connectivity and usage. Sadly, no shred of evidence has been led by the investigating agency on this point. The recovery of alleged equipment and material ought to be fastened to the accused, to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
90. The Court finds and concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 489D, IPC for want of sufficiency of evidence and does not stand conclusively proved against the accused, Salim. The benefit of doubt is ruled in favour of the accused, Salim.
Decision
91. In view of the above findings, observations, the final decision of the Court on the points of determination5 as culled out in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment are as below:
(i) The accused, Salim is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 489B, IPC;5
See paragraph No. 51 of this judgment.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 29/36(ii) The accused, Salim is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 489C, IPC, and
(iii) The accused, Salim is also acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 489D, IPC.
92. Let the case property, be confiscated to the State after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. The bail bond and surety bond already submitted by Salim vide order dated 27.11.2018 shall be kept alive and in force for further period of six months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment, as compliance of Section 437A, CrPC.
93. File be consigned to Record Room only after due compliance and necessary action. Digitally signed by Hargurvarinder Hargurvarinder Singh jaggi Singh jaggi Date:
2026.01.27 15:50:09 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi) on January 27, 2026 Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC-01) South District Saket Courts, New Delhi EB Note: This judgment comprises of 36 pages in total. The electronic signature certificate (digital signature) of the Presiding Officer has been appended on the page number 30 of the electronic or digital copy (PDF) of this document.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 30/36 FORM-B S.No. Rank of Name of Date of Arrest Date of Offences Whether Sentence Period of the the Release on Charged Acquitted or Imposed detention Accused Accused Bail Convicted undergone during Trial for purpose of Section 428 CrPC :: 468 BNSS i. A1 Salim 17.10.2017 28.11.2018 489B, Acquitted - 408 S/o 489C, days Abdul 489D, Latif IPC 1860 SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 31/36 FORM-C
List of Prosecution / Defence / Court Witnesses A. Prosecution Witnesses S.No. Rank Name Nature of Evidence (Eye Witness, Police Witness, Expert Witness, Medical Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)
1. PW1 Kailash Chand, ASI Police witness
2. PW2 Brijesh Eyewitness, complainant
3. PW3 Neelam Eyewitness
4. PW4 Puran Mal, HC Police witness
5. PW5 Visram, HC Police witness
6. PW6 Rajesh Kumar, Ct Police witness
7. PW7 Rajdeep Singh, SI Police witness
8. PW8 Rakesh Kumar, SI Police witness -
Investigating Officer
9. PW9 Anurag Sharma, Asstt. Expert witness Director (Document), FSL/RFSL, GNCT, Delhi B. Defence Witnesses, if any Nil C. Court Witnesses, if any Nil SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 32/36 List of Prosecution / Defence / Court Exhibits A. Prosecution S.No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Exhibit PW-1/A Print out of FIR No. 523/2017 registered at police station Saket.
2. Exhibit PW-1/B Endorsement on rukka by ASI Kailash Chand.
3. Exhibit PW-1/C Certificate u/Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 w.r.t. print out of FIR No. 523/2017.
4. Exhibit PW-2/A Statement of complainant, Brijesh dated 17.10.2017.
5. Exhibit PW-2/B Seizure memo of two fake, counterfeit currency notes of ₹100 each used by accused Salim to purchase utensils from Brijesh.
6. Exhibit PW-2/C Arrest memo of accused Salim also bearing signature of Brijesh.
7. Exhibit PW-2/D Personal search memo of accused also bearing signature of Brijesh.
8. Exhibit PW-2/E Seizure memo of ₹1800/- [10 currency notes of ₹50 and 13 currency notes of ₹100 denomination, respectively], used by accused Salim to purchase clothes from Neelam.
9. Exhibit PW-2/F Seizure memo of ladies undergarments recovered from accused Salim.
10. Exhibit PW-2/G Seizure memo of utensils.
11. Exhibit PW-2/H Seizure memo of two utensils recovered from accused Salim.
12. Exhibit PW-2/I Seizure memo of ₹11,250/- [comprising of 95 currency notes of ₹100 and 35 currency notes SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 33/36 S.No. Exhibit Number Description of ₹50 denomination, respectively], found in black bag in the possession of accused Salim.
13. Mark X Statement of Neelam (PW3) dated 17.10.2017 under Section 161, CrPC.
14. Exhibit PW-4/A Copy of DD No. 66A dated 16.10.2017, police (OSR) station Saket, New Delhi.
15. Exhibit PW-5/A Disclosure statement of accused, Salim dated 17.10.2017 bearing signature of HC Visram (PW5).
16. Exhibit PW-5/B Seizure memo dated 17.10.2017 of ₹7,40,000/- fake currency notes found at the residence of Salim i.e., 20/151, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
17. Exhibit PW-5/C Seizure memo dated 17.10.2017 of one colour printer (Canon Pixma), one black and white printer (EPSON), and one laptop (DELL) found at the residence of Salim i.e., 20/151, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
18. Exhibit PW-5/D Pointing out memo dated 17.10.2017 of the residence of Salim i.e., 20/151, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
19. Exhibit PW-5/E Seizure memo dated 17.10.2017 of four paper rims of BILT Royal Executive Bond, Premium Business Stationery A4/100 sheets found at the residence of Salim i.e., 20/151, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
20. Exhibit PW-5/F Seizure memo undated of ₹800/- [comprising of 16 currency notes of ₹50 denomination] pasted on 4x4 sheets.
21. Exhibit PW-5/G Seizure memo dated 17.10.2017 of ₹800/-
[comprising of 8 currency notes of ₹100 denomination] pasted on 4x2 sheets.
SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 34/36S.No. Exhibit Number Description
22. Exhibit PW-5/H Statement dated 17.10.2017 of HC Vishram under Section 161, CrPC.
23. Mark PW-6/A Photocopy of acknowledgment dated 29.12.2017 issued by RFSL, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi
24. Mark PW-6/B Photocopy of road certificate No. 179/21/17 dated 29.12.2017.
25. Exhibit PW-7/A 08 currency notes of ₹100 denomination.
(Colly.)
26. Exhibit PW-7/B 16 currency notes of ₹50 denomination.
(Colly.)
27. Exhibit PW-7/C 8,646 fake currency notes of ₹50 and ₹100 denomination, respectively. The total amount of ₹7,40,000/-
28. Exhibit PW-8/A Site plan (naksha mauka) dated 17.10.2017 prepared by IO, SI Rakesh Kumar at the instance of complainant Brijesh and Neelam.
29. Exhibit PW-8/B 1516 fake currency notes of ₹50 (Colly.) denomination; 7126 fake currency notes of ₹100 denomination, and 8 original currency notes of ₹100 denomination recovered from accused Salim.
30. Exhibit PW9/A The expert witness, Anurag Sharma, Asstt.
Director (Document), FSL/RFSL, GNCT, Delhi report dated 27.03.2018 with regard to the currency notes seized from the accused, Salim.
B. Defence Nil C. Court Exhibits SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 35/36 Nil D. Material Objects6 S.No. Material Object Description Number
1. Ex.PW5/P3 Laptop (Dell).
2. Ex.PW5/P4 Printer (Epson EPS-1).
3. Ex.PW5/P5 Printer (Canon).
4. Ex.PW5/P6 Bundles (sic) of paper sheet.
5. Ex.P7-Colly. Two small steel cylindrical containers, two big steel containers, and one steel plate.
6. Ex.P8-Colly. Two small steel cylindrical containers.
7. Ex.P9 Three ladies under garments.
***** ***** ****** 6 See testimony of IO/SI, Rakesh Kumar (PW-8) dated 23.08.2024 SC No. 47/2018 State v. Salim Page No. 36/36