Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sonu Kumar Jha vs The State Of West Bengal on 17 December, 2019
Author: Shivakant Prasad
Bench: Shivakant Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Shivakant Prasad
CRA 72 of 2018
Sonu Kumar Jha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
For the Appellant : Mr. Md. Zeeshanuddin
Ms. Amrin Khatoon
Mr. Md. Shehabuddin
For the State : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Mainak Gupta
Heard on : 17.12.2019
Judgment on : 17.12.2019
Shivakant Prasad, J:-
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Court of the learned Additional district and
Sessions Judge, FTC, 3rd Court, Malda convicting the appellant thereby for
offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for
committing an offence punishable under Section 489C of the IPC under Section
235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in Sessions Trial No.30(2)/2016
corresponding to Sessions Case No. 574 of 2015 arising out of G.R.Case no. 2910
of 2015 in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No.458 of 2015
dated19.08.2015 under Sections 489B/489C of the IPC.
The prosecution case in brief is that Pradip Kumar Sarkar, S.I. of
Kaliachak Police Station, Malda, lodged an FIR to the effect that that on
19.08.2015at about 13.45 hours he received a telephonic information from Field 'G' Team, Farakka, SHQ BSF Malda that a deal of Fake Indian Currency Note (FICN) would take place at Kaliachak Mini Market side and the BSF team asked 2 for police help. Subsequently a general diary was entered by him and as per direction of the Inspector in Chargem, he along with other police officials left the police station to work out the information of the BSF team. The police team reached the area at about 14.10 hours. The complaint requested two disinterested witnesses to remain present during the operation and at 14.25 hours the source of BSF identified the person. The police officials immediately surrounded the person who was waiting with a schoolbag beside NH 34 in front of Kaliachak Mini Market to board a public transport. The suspect was detained by the police party and the suspect was invited to search the police personnel but the suspect refused to do so. Then, on search 243 pieces of Rs.1000/- FICNs amount to Rs.2,43,000/- and 99 pieces of Rs.500/- FICNs amounting Rs.49,500/- were recovered from the black coloured schoolbag of the suspect who on interrogation, disclosed about his involvement in the crime. The seizure list was prepared in presence of the witnesses maintaining legal formalities. The seized articles were labelled and suspect was arrested. The entire procedure was completed in between 14.40 hours to 16.40 hours.
On the basis of the said complaint, Kaliachak Police Station Case No.458 of 2015 dated 19.08.2015 under Sections 489B/489C of the IPC, 1860 was initiated against the appellant and after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under sections 489B and 489C IPC and on committal of the case to the court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge, Malda transferred the same for trial to the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C., 3rd Court, Malda.
Trial started on framing of the charges under Sections 489B and 489C IPC to which the appellant abjured the guilty and was put on trial. In order to substantiate the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and after completion of evidence the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.PC to which he declined to adduce any evidence.
Defence is one of the denial of charges levelled against the appellant which would emerge from the trend of cross examination the prosecution witnesses. 3 The Trial court on hearing the parties on appraisal of evidence, held the appellant guilty of the charges under Section 489C IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a direction that the pre-trial detention undergone by the convict be set off from the substantive period of sentence under Section 428 of the Code.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that learned Judge has failed to consider the procedure of search and seizure made by the complainant which is not in accordance with law. Though the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and some of the documents were marked during trial but four police witnesses did not depose anything incriminating the appellant. Two of the witnesses were seizure list witnesses and one was the Investigating Officer himself.
It is submitted that on the basis of deposition of the said witnesses, learned Trial court without seeking corroboration by any independent eye- witnesses, passed the impugned judgment. It is further pointed out that one Jiban Barman PW1 deposed that BSF personnel detained one person but other witnesses have said that the complainant detained the accused. PW2 had no personal knowledge about the incident of the case whereas PW3 did not state about the total numbers of FICNs, recovered from the accused. While on the other hand, one Sankar Sarkar, examined as PW8, had stated that seized alamat of the case was not produced before him in the trial.
Thus it is submitted by learned Advocate for the appellant that , there are the discrepancies in the prosecution case. I have critically examined the evidence on record but I do not find inconsistency in the statement of the said witnesses.
I have heard Mr. Zeeshanuddin, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhuri, learned advocate appearing for the State and I have gone through the judgment impugned. The ground, as taken on behalf of the appellant, in my opinion, is not tenable in law as certain discrepancies pointed out do not go to the root of the prosecution. On the 4 contrary I find that evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses are in general agreement in respect of conduct of raid by police team along with BSF who apprehended the accused and seized huge quantity of FICN. It would appear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that on 19.08.2015 at about 13:45 hours on receipt of information over telephone from Field 'G' team of 20 Bn. BSF about the expected deal of the FICNs near New Market, Kaliachak. G.D. was entered as per the direction of I.C., the police force went to Kaliachak, New Market, where BSF personnel were already there and request was made to the local persons to be present at the time of raid. The entire police force ambushed that area and after identification of the source they detained the accused person along with a bag of his back side and on interrogation the complainant searched the accused and FICNs of Rs.2,92,500/- of denomination of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- genuine Indian currency notes of Rs.390/-, mobile phone VISA card etc. were seized. The FICNs were sent to Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd., Salboni, and after their examination wherefrom it has been revealed that the seized notes were high quality counterfeit Indian currency notes. Therefore, recovery from the possession of the accused person was justified for the presumption against him that possession of the notes were for trafficking with the intention to use them as genuine currency notes. There was no reason or any motive for the prosecution to implicate the accused appellant as the appellant came from Baisali district of Bihar who is completely unknown in that area, from whom the said currency notes were recovered.
Therefore, on considering the totality of the evidence the learned Trial Court rightly held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 489C of the IPC. Therefore I do not find any sufficient ground to disagree with the observation and findings of the learned Trial Court.
For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2017 and the sentence vide order dated 21.12.2017 are hereby affirmed.
It is made to understand that the appellant is likely to complete the sentence of 5 years as awarded against him. Accordingly, after serving the full sentence by the appellant, he be released from the custody immediately. 5
Accordingly, the appeal being CRA 72 of 2018 is dismissed. A copy of this judgment together with LCR be sent down to the learned Trial Court forthwith for necessary note in the Sessions Trial Register and for doing the needful. An extract copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent, Malda Central Correctional Home for his information and doing the needful.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on completion of all necessary formalities.
(Shivakant Prasad, J.) s.biswas