Delhi District Court
State vs Nazma (P.O.) on 18 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.: 254/2011
PS.: Kotwali
U/s.: 489B/489C IPC
State Vs. Nazma
(a) SC Case No. 27553/2016
(b) CNR No. DLCT01-000774-2016
(c) Date of commission of 20.11.2011 at 04:15 p.m.
offence
(d) Name of the Shri. Bachu Chaudhary, S/o.
complainant Shri. Shiv Narayan, R/o. H. No.
929, Gali No. 83, Shiv Kunj,
Sant Nagar, Burari. Delhi.
(e) Name of the accused Nazma, W/o. Mr. Yasin (as per
person(s), parentage chargesheet), R/o. H. No. 872,
and residence B-Block, Bawana, Delhi;
Presently at: H. No. 554,
Kunwar Wali Gali, Nakab Ganj,
Delight, Delhi.
(f) Plea of the accused Not guilty
person(s)
(g) Final Order Accused Nazma is acquitted of
the charges levelled against her.
(h) Date of institution of 11.05.2016
case
(i) Date when judgment 24.04.2025
was reserved
(j) Date when judgment 18.07.2025
was pronounced
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. Succinctly, the facts leading to the initiation of the present case/proceedings are that on 20.11.2011, SI Jagdish Yadav along with Ct. Inderjeet are asserted to have reached at Link Road, Subhash Marg, at around 04:15 p.m., while on patrolling duty. Upon reaching at Shop No. 56, Link Road, Subhash Marg, Chandani Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter referred to SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 1 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:09:18 +0530 as the 'spot/shop'), the owner of the said shop/the complainant herein, namely, Bachu Chaudhary, S/o. Shri. Shiv Narain, R/o.
H. No. 929, Gali No. 83, Shiv Kunj, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') is stated to have presented the accused Nazma (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') as well as one note of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination to the said police officials. Correspondingly, it was apprised by the complainant to the said police officials that the said accused, was purchasing clothes (shirt) by deploying said fake currency note/fake Indian Currency notes (hereinafter referred to as 'FICN'). Ergo, under said circumstances, the said currency note was taken into custody/seized by SI Jagdish Yadav and Lady Constable Meera Tomar was called to the spot. Consequently, on Lady Ct. Meera Tomar's reaching at the spot, bag and purse of the accused are proclaimed to have been checked by the said Lady Constable, whereupon 03 (three) notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination each were recovered (Najma उपरोक्त का Bag व पर्स चैक किये, जो पर्स से 3 नोट एक-एक हजार के बरामद हु ए). Simultaneously, when the said recovered notes were checked, their paper was found to be rough/coarse; colour of the notes was determined to be slightly pale; stripe on which RBI was written was revealed to be coarse as well as when the said notes were checked at an angle, the stripe was determined to not change its colour (जिनको चैक किया तो पेपर खुर्दरा है, नोटो का रंग पीलापन पर है, तार जिसमें RBI लिखा है, वो खुर्दरा है तथा Notes को तिरछा करके चैक किया तो तार का रंग चें ज नहीं हु आ). Consequently, the said three recovered notes of serial numbers bearing; (1) 5BK 593721; (2) 5BK 593715; and (3) 5BK 589776, were established to be fake/FICN and were, accordingly, seized as well as sealed under a pullanda, Mark 'A'.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 2 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:09:22 +0530
2. At the same time, SI Jagdish is asserted to have made enquiries from the accused, who informed him that the aforesaid four notes were given/handed over to her/the accused by one Chhotu @ Dilshad, by asking her to use the said notes in market and assuring her/the accused that she would get Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), i.e., Rs. 500/- each (Rupees Five Hundred only) in lieu of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, as the said notes were fake (SI Jagdish ने Lady Najma से पूछताछ की, जिसने बतलाया कि उसे ये चारो नोट Chhotu @ Dilshad नाम के व्यक्ति ने दिये हैं , यह कहकर कि इन नोटो को बाजार में चला देना और बदले में 2,000/- रू० मिलेगें (एक हजार रू० के बदले 500/- रू०) क्योंकि ये नोट नकली है।). Further, statement of the complainant was recorded by the concerned police official/IO, wherein the complainant inter alia declared that he was engaged in the business of sale of old shirts from Shop No. 56, Link Road, Subhash Marg, Chandani Chowk, Delhi and on 20.11.2011 at around 04:00 p.m., he/the complainant was present at his shop. Further, as per the complainant, at that point in time, one woman reached at his/complainant's shop and purchased two shits against consideration of Rs. 50/- (Rupees Fifty only) each [cumulative sale consideration of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred only), जो उसी समय एक औरत मेरी दुकान पर आयी और दो शर्ट खरीदी जिनकी कु ल 100 रू० हु ए (50+50 रू०)]. It was further proclaimed by the complainant that the said woman took out a note of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination from her purse and handed over the same to the complainant (जो उपरोक्त औरत ने मुझे 1,000/- रू० का नोट अपने पर्स से निकाल कर दिया). The complainant further avowed that when he checked the said note, he got a little suspicious as the paper of the said note was coarse/rough; colour thereof was slightly pale; stripe on which RBI was written was coarse as well SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 3 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.18 16:09:26 +0530 as when the said note was checked at an angle, the said stripe was not to changing colour (जो एक हजार रू० के नोट को मैनें चैक किया तो नकली लगा, क्योंकि नोट का कागज खुर्दरा महसुस हु आ तथा Note का रंग भी पीला-पीला लगा था तथा नोट में लगा तार जिसमें RBI लिखा है खुर्दरा महसुस हु आ तथा नोट को तिरछा करके चैक किया तो तार का Colour Change नहीं हु आ). As per the complainant, at that point in time, the aforesaid police official(s) reached at the spot, who were informed of the occurrence, besides the aforesaid note of serial no. 5BK 589804 was handed over to the said police official(s), which was seized/sealed in a pullanda. The complainant further asserted that the particulars/identity of the aforesaid woman was determined to be Nazma, W/o. Shri. Yasin, R/o. H. No. 872, B-Block, Bawana, Delhi, the accused herein.
REGISTRATION OF FIR AND INVESTIGATION:
3. Notably, under the aforenoted facts and circumstances, the police officials are asserted to have determined that the accused, namely, Nazma, indulged in the sale, circulation and possession of fake Indian currency notes/FICNs, thereby, committed offences under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Consequently, SI Jagdish Yadav is asserted to have sent the tehrir/rukka through Ct. Inderjeet to the concerned police station, in order to get the FIR/case registered. Consequently, under such facts and circumstances, the instant FIR came to be registered. Notably, the further investigation in the case, is stated to have been handed over/marked to SI Jagdish Yadav, leading to the ensuing investigation (जो उपरोक्त Lady Najma ने Fake Currency Note of Rs. 1,000/- जानते हु ए बाजार में चलाया है तथा 3 नोट नकली और उसके कब्जा से बरामद हु ए है। जो नाजमा उपरोक्त ने सरे दस्त सूरत जुर्म u/s 489B & 489 C IPC का किया है, सील JY, Ct Inderjeet No. 1461/N के हवाले की है। जो SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 4 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.18 16:09:31 +0530 SI Jagdish Yadav साहब ने तहरीर लिखकर मुकदमा दर्ज रजिस्टर कराया व तफ्तीश SI Jagdish Yadav साहब ने अमल में लाई।).
4. Relevantly, during the course of investigation, site plan was prepared by SI Jagdish Yadav at the instance of the complainant and the FICNs were duly sealed as well as deposited in the malkhana, besides the statements of various witnesses were recorded (दौराने तफ्तीश SI Jagdish Yadav साहब ने शिकायतकर्ता की निशानदेही पर नक्शा मौका नजरी तैयार किया व Face Currency Note को बतौर वजह सबूत बरूए फर्द कब्जा पुलिस में लिया तथा दाखिल मालखाना किया तथा गवाहन के ब्यानात लिखे।). Further, disclosure statement of the accused was recorded and she was arrested in the present case. Notably, during the ensuing investigation, the seized FICNs were sent to Currency Note Press, Nasik for opinion and the opinion thereon was obtained. Pertinently, as per the said opinion, the said notes were determined to be counterfeit. In particular, the said report/opinion inter alia concluded, "...The referred suspected notes of Rs. 1000/- deno. are COUNTERFEIT NOTES, due to the abovementioned reasons and absence of other Covert security features of relevant design...". It is further asserted that during the course of intervening investigation, the accused declared that the said notes were handed over to her by one Dilshad @ Chhotu, S/o. Lal Chand, R/o. B-100, JJ Colony, Bawana Delhi, who was thoroughly searched, however, said person/Dilshad @ Chhotu could not be apprehended. Consequently, proceedings under Section 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code') were eventually initiated against Dilshad @ Chhotu and vide order dated 27.06.2013, Ld. MM-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Dilshad @ Chhotu was declared as an SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 5 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.18 16:09:35 +0530 absconder/proclaimed person inter alia under the following observations;
"...Today the process issued against the accused u/s. 83 Cr.P.C. has been received back unexecuted. Statement of process server HC Shri. Ram has been recorded separately as CW-2.
Perusal of record reveals that on 28.05.2013, i.e., the date fixed for appearance of accused in the process issued against him u/s. 82 Cr.P.C., the accused did not appear. Statement of concerned process server was recorded as CW1. In view of the reports on the process issued against the accused Dilshad @ Chotu u/s. 82/83 Cr.P.C., this court is of the considered opinion that the accused Dilshad @ Chotu S/o. Lal Chand Sheikh has absconded or is trying to evade the process of law. Accordingly, he is declared an absconder. Application is disposed of..."
(Emphasis supplied) FILING OF CHARGESHEET AND COMMITTAL PROCEDINGS:
5. Markedly, upon conclusion of investigation in the instant case, chargesheet against accused, Nazma, was filed by the concerned IO before Ld. MM-08, Central, Tis Hazari Courts under Sections 489B/489C IPC. Relevantly, the chargesheet specifically records that Dilshad @ Chotu had already been declared a proclaimed person/absconder in the present case. Notably, upon perusal of the chargesheet and consideration of facts as well as circumstances brought forth, cognizance of the offences specified under the chargesheet was taken by the Ld. MM-08, Central, Tis Hazari Courts on 29.01.2016. Subsequently, upon conclusion/compliance of the provisions under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., Ld. MM-03 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 30.04.2016, passed an order of committal of the present case before the Ld. Predecessor Judge, routed via Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 6 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:09:47 +0530 CHARGE FRAMING:
6. Relevantly, the Ld. Predecessor Judge heard the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and upon conclusion of the same, charge(s) under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC were framed against accused, namely, Nazma vide order dated 19.05.2016. Notably, the relevant extract of the said order of charge is reproduced as under;
"...I have perused the record. After hearing the arguments on behalf of the State, a prima facie case under Section 489B/489C IPC has been made out against the accused. Accordingly, charge under Section 489B/489C IPC is framed against the accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Put up for PE on..."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Further, it is apposite to reproduce the charges, as framed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, against the accused, Nazma on 19.05.2016, pursuant to the aforesaid order, as under;
"...I, ***, Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central), Delhi do hereby charge you Nazma W/o. Sh. Yasin as under:
That on 20.11.2011 at about 4.15 p.m. at Teh Bazari shop No.56, Link Road, Subhash Marg, Chandni Chowk, within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali, you were found trafficking the counterfeit currency notes of Rs.1000/- and you were also found in possession of 3 fake currency notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination each and knowingly and having reason to believe the same to be counterfeit notes and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 489-B/489-C IPC.
And, I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the aforesaid offences..."
(Emphasis supplied) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
8. Notably, during the course of proceedings/trial that followed, the prosecution examined 11 (eleven) witnesses, i.e., SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 7 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:09:51 +0530 prosecution witnesses, who deposed in their respective depositions/testimonies as under;
8.1. PW-1/ Sh. Deepak Ashok Padwan, Deputy Manager, (Technical Operations), Currency Notes Government Press, Nasik, Maharashtra deposed that on 08.12.2011, two envelopes, sealed with the seal of 'JY' were received at the said press and on 07.01.2012, the said envelopes were assigned to him/PW-1 for examination. Further, as per PW-1, prior to that/such assignment, Sh. P. Bose, Head of the Department/Asst. Work Manager had already opened the said envelops, which were found containing 04 (four) currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination. It was further deposed by PW-1 that on examination, he/PW-1 found that the said 04 (four) currency notes were counterfeit, by comparing with genuine specimen note, with the help of modern scientific instruments. PW-1 further proved his detailed report in this regard as Ex. PW 1/A, running into 04 (four) pages and bearing PW-1's signatures at points A, A1 and A2.
8.2. PW-2/HC Hansraj, No. 186T deposed that on 20.11.2011, he/PW-2 was posted at PS. Kotwali and in the intervening night of 20.11.2011 and 21.11.2011, he/PW-2 was working as duty officer from 05.00 p.m. to 01.00 a.m. Further, as per PW-2, at about 06.20 p.m. on 20.11.2011, he/PW-2 received a rukka through Ct. Inderjeet, which was sent by SI Jagdish Yadav. Correspondingly, as per PW-2, on the basis of the said rukka, he/PW-2 got the FIR registered by the computer operator, on the computer kept at the police station, in the ordinary course of business. PW-2 further proved the printout of the FIR as Ex. PW2/A, bearing PW-2's signatures at point A. It was further deposed by PW-2 that he gave/issued certificate under Section SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 8 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:09:55 +0530 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Evidence Act'), Ex. PW 2/B, bearing PW-2's signatures at point A. Further, as per PW-2, he made an endorsement in respect to registration of FIR, encircled at point 'X' on the said rukka (Ex. PW2/C), bearing PW-2's signatures at point A. PW-2 further proclaimed that the original rukka and copy of FIR was handed over to aforesaid constable to be taken to said SI, as the investigation had been marked/entrusted to him/said SI Jagdish Yadav.
8.3. PW-3/Sh. Bachu Chaudhary deposed that on 20th day of a month, which was cold, in the year, 2011, he/PW-3 was operating/running a shop bearing No. 56 at Link Road, Subhash Marg, Chandni Chowk. As per PW-3, he used to sell old shirts from the said shop and the accused, who was correctly identified by PW-3 before Court, reached at his/PW-3's shop at around 04:00 p.m. on the said day, as well as purchased two gent's shirts for a total sale consideration of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred only). Further, as per PW-3, the accused gave him a currency note of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), which he/PW-3 suspected to be forged. PW-3 further deposed that at that time, one police Constable, namely, Inderjeet was present there, who was requested by PW-3 to check the said currency note. As per PW-3, the said Constable also found the said currency note to be forged and counterfeit. Consequently, as per PW-3, the said Constable kept the said currency note in an envelope and closed the same. After some time, as per PW-3, SI Jagdish reached there, who sealed the said currency note envelope and his/PW-3's statement was recorded as well as his/PW-3's signatures were obtained on some papers. PW-3 further proclaimed that he had seen hid statement (Ex. PW2/C), bearing SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 9 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.18 16:09:59 +0530 PW-3's signatures at point B. It was further asserted by PW-3 that the said currency note was seized by SI vide seizure memo, Ex. PW3/A, bearing PW-3's signatures at point A. Correspondingly, as per PW-3, the said lady accused was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/B, bearing PW-3's signatures at point A. Notably, upon MHC(M)'s producing one open envelope, containing one currency note of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only, old currency) having serial no. 5BK 589804, PW-3 identified the said note as the one given to him by accused, Nazma, which was Ex. P-6.
8.4. PW-4/Ct. Raghvender, No. 1308/OD deposed that on 20.11.20211, he/PW-4 was posted at PS. Narela and on the said day, he joined the investigation of the said case with IO/ASI Jagdish of PS. Kotwali and went to H. No. 372, B-Block of Bawana, which was the house of accused Nazma and searched the same. However, as per PW-4, nothing could be recovered from the said house, and a memo to the said effect was prepared, which is Ex. PW4/A, bearing PW-4's signatures at point A. Further, as per PW-4, thereafter, they went to the house of one Chhotu S/o. Lal Chand, bearing No. 100, B Block, Bawana and the said house was also searched, however, nothing incriminating could be recovered. Ergo, as per PW-4, memo to the said effect was prepared, which is Ex. PW4/B, bearing PW-4's signatures at point A. 8.5. PW-5/W/Constable Meera, No. 2046/N deposed that on 02.11.2011, she was posted as Constable at PS. Kotwali and that day, on being called by the IO, she/PW-5 reached at the spot, i.e., outside shop no. 56, Link Road, Subhash Marg, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Further, as per PW-5 on the directions of IO, she/PW-5 took formal search of accused Nazma, who was SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 10 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.18 16:10:04 +0530 correctly identified by PW-5 in Court. Correspondingly, PW-5 asserted that on such search, three currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, were recovered from the possession of accused Nazma. It was further deposed by PW-5 that on checking, the said currency notes were found/suspected to be fake. Accordingly, as per PW-5, the IO kept the currency notes in an envelope and sealed the same as well as seized them vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A, bearing PW-5's signature at point A. Further, as per PW-5, the accused was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/B, bearing PW-5's signatures at point B. At the same time, as per PW-5, personal search of the accused was taken vide memo Ex. PW5/B, bearing PW-5's signatures at point A. It was further deposed by PW-5 that the accused made her disclosure statement as Ex. PW5/C, bearing PW-5's signature at point A. Further, PW-5 proclaimed that the shirts, which were purchased by the accused were also seized by the IO vide memo, Ex. PW5/D, bearing PW-5's signature at point A. Notably, during the course of her deposition, upon MHC(M)'s producing and opening an envelope, containing 03 (three) currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination each, having serial nos. 5BK 593715, 5BK 593721 and 5BK 593776, PW-5 identified the same as the ones/notes, which were recovered from the possession of the accused. The currency notes are Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3. Correspondingly, upon MHC(M)'s producing two green colour shirts in packed condition, PW-5 identified the same as the ones seized by the IO in her/PW-5's presence. The shirts are Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5.
8.6. PW-6/Constable Inderjeet, No. 7186/PCR deposed that on 20.11.2011, he/PW-6 was posted as Constable at PS. SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 11 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:10:08 +0530 Kotwali and was on area patrolling duty in the area of New Lajpat Rai Market along with SI Jagdish Yadav. At about 04.15 p.m., as per PW-6, they reached a place where some crowd was gathered and one Bachu Chaudhary produced the accused, who was correctly identified by PW-6 in Court, as well as, got his statement recorded. PW-6 further deposed that said Bachu Chaudhary also handed over one fake currency note of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination and SI Jagdish seized the said currency notes vide seizure memo, Ex. PW3/A, bearing PW-6's signatures at point B. Further, as per PW-6, the IO prepared rukka and sent him/PW-6 to the police station for the registration of FIR. Correspondingly, PW-6 proclaimed that he/PW-6 handed over the rukka to the duty officer, who recorded the FIR and handed over the original rukka as well as copy of FIR to him/PW-6. Thereafter, as per PW-6, he went to the spot and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. PW-6 further avowed that W/Constable Meera was called from the police station and formal search of the accused was taken and three currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3 were recovered and the same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW5/A, bearing PW-6's signatures at point B. As per PW-6, the accused was interrogated and arrested. Further, PW-6 proclaimed that the IO seized 02 (two) green colour shirts in packed conditions Ex. P-4 and Ex. P- 5 vide seizure memo, Ex. PW5/D bearing PW-6's signature at point B. PW-6 also deposed that thereafter, they went to police post and also took the accused to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital for her medical examination. Further, as per PW-6, the IO had recorded his statement. Notably, during the course of her deposition, upon MHC(M)'s producing and opening an envelope, SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 12 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.18 16:10:12 +0530 containing 03 (three) currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination each, having serial nos. 5BK 593715, 5BK 593721 and 5BK 593776, PW-6 identified the same as the ones/notes, which were recovered from the possession of the accused. The currency notes are Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3. Correspondingly, upon MHC(M)'s producing two green colour shirts in packed condition, PW-6 identified the same as the ones seized by the IO in his/PW-6's presence. The shirts are Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5.
8.7. PW-7/W/HC Shashi, No. 2552/NW deposed that on 20.11.2011, she was posted as Constable at PS. Lahori Gate, Delhi and on that day, she/PW-7 was on night reserve duty at PS. Subzi Mandi, Delhi. As per PW-7, her duty hours were from 08:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m. of the following morning. Further, as per PW-7, on being called from PS. Kotwali, she went to Police Post Red Fort and was informed by the IO that a raid was to be conducted and she/PW-7 joined the raiding party. PW-7 further deposed that accused Nazma, who was correctly identified by PW-7 in Court, was already in the custody of a Lady Constable and she handed over the custody of accused Nazma to her/PW-7. Thereafter, as per PW-7, they went to the area of Bawana, JJ Colony to conduct the raid and one Constable was also with them. Correspondingly, PW-7 asserted that a raid was conducted at House No. 372, B-Block and the said house was searched, however, nothing incriminating was recovered during search. Subsequently, as per PW-7, they went to House No. 100, B- Block of one Chhotu and a raid was also conducted there, however, nothing incriminating was recovered from the said premise as well. Consequently, PW-7 deposed that they returned to the police station. As per PW-7, the search memos were SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 13 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:10:17 +0530 prepared at the spot and the same are Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B, both bearing PW-7's signature at Point B. 8.8. PW-8/Ins. Jagdish Yadav, No. D-3772 deposed that on 20.11.2011, he/PW-8 was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS Kotwali and was working as In-charge, Police Post Red Fort. As per PW-8, he along with Ct. Inderjeet were on area patrolling and at around 04.15 p.m., they reached near shop no. 56 at Subhash Marg. Further, as per PW-8, one shopkeeper, namely, Bachu Chaudhary produced accused Nazma, who was correctly identified by PW-8 in Court, along with one currency note of Rs.
1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination. PW-8 further asserted that said Bachu Chaudhary informed him/PW-8 that accused had given the said currency note to him/Bachu Chaudhary for purchasing two shirts. Further, as per PW-8, he/PW-8 checked the said currency note and suspected that it was fake. Ergo, PW-8 stated that he converted the said currency note in a parcel, sealing the same with the seal of 'JY' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A, bearing PW-8's signature at point B. PW-8 further deposed that he called Lady Constable Meera Tomar and she checked the purse of accused and recovered 03 (three) more currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each and the same were also suspected to be fake due to security features. Accordingly, PW-8 proclaimed that he converted the same in a sealed parcel, sealing the same with the seal of 'JY' and seized through separate seizure memo, Ex. PW5/A, bearing PW-8's signatures at point C. Correspondingly, as per PW-8, two shirts were also found in the bag of the accused and the same were also seized by him/PW-8 vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/D, bearing PW-8's signatures at point C. Thereafter, as per PW-8, he recorded the statement ( Ex.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 14 of 61PW7/A) of Bachu Chaudhary, bearing PW-8's signatures at point X and that of complainant at point B. PW-8 also declared that he made his endorsement, Ex. PW7/B, bearing PW-8's signatures at point A and he/PW-8 got the case registered through Ct. Inderjeet. As per PW-8, he prepared the site plan ( Ex. PW7/C) at the instance of the complainant, bearing PW-8's signatures at point A. PW-8 further deposed that he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/B, bearing PW-8's signatures at point C and her personal search was taken in the presence of Ct. Meera Tomar vide memo, Ex. PW5/D, bearing PW-8's signatures at point B. Accused is further asserted by PW-8 to have made her disclosure statement, Ex. PW5/C, bearing PW-8's signatures at point B. Further, as per PW-8, the medical examination of the accused was got conducted and he/PW-8 joined Ct. Shashi in the investigation as well as they raided the house where the accused was residing. Correspondingly, as per PW-8, another house of one Chotu was also raided, however, no fake currency(ies) were recovered from the said two places. Consequently, as per PW-8, he/PW-8 prepared memos in the said regard as Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B, bearing PW-8's signatures at point C. PW-8 further proclaimed that he deposited the case property with MHC(M) and made efforts to trace said Chhotu. It was further deposed by PW-8 that during the course of investigation, he/PW-8 sent the case property to Nasik Press through Ct. Sanjay. Further, as per PW-8, on 17.02.2012, he/PW-8 collected the result of Nasik Press in respect of the currency notes. Thereafter, as per PW-8, he was transferred from the said police post and he handed over the case file to MHC(R). PW-8 further correctly identified the accused in court. Notably, during the course of her deposition, upon MHC(M)'s producing and opening an envelope, containing SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 15 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:10:27 +0530 03 (three) currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination each, having serial nos. 5BK 593715, 5BK 593721 and 5BK 589776, PW-8 identified the same as the ones/notes, which were recovered from the purse of the accused Nazma. The currency notes are Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3.
Correspondingly, upon MHC(M)'s producing two green colour shirts in packed condition, PW-8 identified the same as recovered from the purse of accused Nazma. The shirts are Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5. Further, upon MHC(M)'s producing one open envelope, containing one currency note of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only, old currency), having serial no. 5BK 589804, PW-8 identified the same as given by accused Nazma, which note is Ex. P-6.
8.9. PW-9/Insp. (Retd.) Sanjay Goswami deposed that on 23.02.2012, he/PW-9 was posted as SI at PS Kotwali and on that day, the present case was assigned to him/PW-9 for further investigation. PW-9 further deposed that he peruse the case file and found that the investigation was complete, although, co- accused, Chotu was yet to be arrested in this case. Further, as per PW-9, NBWs against Chotu was already issued. Consequently, as per PW-9, he sent the draft chargesheet to the prosecution and further investigation was assigned SI Karamvir Singh. 8.10. PW-10/ASI Ashok, No. 610/T deposed that on 20.11.2011, he/PW-10 was posted as MHC(M) in the PS Kotwali. As per PW-10, on the said day, IO/SI Jagdish Yadav deposited the following articles in malkhana vide entry at Sr. No. 6626 in Reg. No. 19; "(1) Two shirts of green colour in a transparent polythene bag and one multi-colour jute hand bag; (2) One white colour envelope sealed with the seal having impression 'JY', containing one currency note of Rs.1,000/-
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 16 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:10:32 +0530
(Rupees One Thousand only); and (3) One white colour envelope sealed with the seal having impression 'JY', containing 03 (three) currency notes of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only)." PW-10 further produced the original Reg. No. 19, containing entry at Sr. No. 6626, copy of which relevant page of Reg. No. 19, containing entry No. 6626 is Ex. PW10/A (OSR). PW-10 further deposed that on 23.11.2011, the said two envelope, sealed with the seal of 'JY' were sent to RBI Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi, through SI Jagdish Yadav, vide RC No. 122/21/11, however, the same were returned by SI Jagdish Yadav and deposited in malkhana. Correspondingly, as per PW-10, on 06.12.2011, the aforesaid two envelope, sealed with the seal of impression, 'JY' were sent to Currency Note Press, Government of India, Nasik Maharashtra, through HC Sanjay, vide RC No. 123/21/11. Further, as per PW-10, on 13.12.2011, he received the acknowledgement of receipt dated 08.12.2011 of the aforesaid envelopes from the Office of Currency Note Press, Government of India, Nasik Maharashtra. PW-10 further proved the acknowledgement as Ex. PW10/B (OSR). Concomitantly, PW-10 produced the original Reg. No. 21, containing RC No. 122/21/11 and RC No. 123/21/11, copy of relevant pages of Reg. No. 21, containing RC No. 122/21/11 and RC No. 123/21/11 are Ex. PW10/C and Ex. PW10/D (OSR). As per PW-10, till the exhibits remained with him/PW-10 in the malkhana, seals of the exhibits remained intact and they were not tampered with.
8.11. PW-11/Ins. Ramesh Prasad Singh deposed that on 22.12.2015, he was posted as SI at PS Kotwali and on the said day, further investigation of the present case was assigned to him/PW-11. As per PW-11, he received the case file, perused the SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 17 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:10:42 +0530 same and found that the investigation had already been completed, besides the draft chargesheet was already prepared by the earlier IO. Conclusively, as per PW-11, he finalized the chargesheet and filed the same in the Court. 8.12. Notably, all the aforenoted prosecution witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined/offered to be cross examined by/on behalf of the accused by Ld. Counsel for the accused. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED:
9. Apposite to note here that upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused, Nazma, in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the accused denied her involvement in the present case as well as refuted that she was aware of the alleged notes being fake. Correspondingly, it was declared by the accused that the instant case was registered by the concerned police officials of PS. Kotwali, without properly investigating the matter. Further, as per the accused, the fake currency notes were given by one Raja @ Yasin to her/the accused as she had sold her goat to him/Raja @ Yasin. However, despite the same, as per the accused, IO did not arrest the Raja @ Yasin. Notably, the relevant extracts from the statement of the accused, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., are reproduced as under;
"...Q. 7: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW3/Bachu Chaudhary deposed that on 20th day of a month which was cold in the year 2011, he/PW3 was running the shop no. 56 at Link Road, Subhash Marg, Chandni Chowk and he/PW3 used to sell old shirts. It is further in evidence that as per PW-3, at about 04:00 p.m., you/accused Nazma (correctly identified in Court as the one present in Court on the date of PW-3's deposition) came to his/PW-3's shop and purchased two gents' shirts for Rs. 100/- for both the shirts. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 18 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:10:59 +0530
Q. 8: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW3/Bachu Chaudhary deposed that you/accused Nazma gave him/PW3 a currency note of Rs. 1000/-. It is further in evidence that as per PW-3, he/PW3 suspected the said currency note to be forged and at that time, one Police Constable, namely, Inderjeet was there to whom he/PW3 asked to check the said currency note, who also found the same to be forged and counterfeit. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect as abovesaid currency note was given to the accused by the Raja @ Yasin and accused was not aware about the same. Q. 9: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW3/Bachu Chaudhary deposed that the aforesaid constable kept the said currency note in an envelope and closed the same. It is further in evidence that as per PW-3, after some time, SI Jagdish came there who sealed the said currency note envelope and his/PW3's statement was recorded as well as his/PW-3's signatures were obtained on some papers. What do you have to say?
Answer: I do not know.
*** *** *** Q. 16: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW5/W/Constable Meera deposed that on the direction of the IO, she took formal search of accused Nazma and recovered three currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- each. It is further in evidence that as per PW-5, on checking the currency notes, the same were found suspected to be fake. What do you have to say?
Answer: I do not remember but I remember that the same currency note was given to me by Raja @ Yasin.
*** *** *** Q. 57: Why was this case registered against you? Answer: This case was registered by the concerned police officials at PS Kotwali without properly investigated the matter as the alleged faked currency notes were given by the Raja @ Yasin to me as I sold my goat to Raja @ Yasin. During the investigation, IO of the case did not arrest the said Raja @ Yasin as he was the real culprit.
Q. 58: Why have the PWs deposed against you? Answer: All the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses.
Q. 59: Do you want to lead any evidence in your defence?
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 19 of 61
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18
16:11:11
+0530
Answer: Yes.
Q. 60: Do you want to say anything else?
Answer: I am innocent. I have no concern with the said fake currency notes. I have been falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials at PS Kotwali without properly investigating the matter..."
(Emphasis supplied) DEFENCE WITNESS(ES):
10. As aforenoted, the accused opted to lead defence evidence, DW-1/Ms. Nazmeen. Relevantly, DW-1/Ms. Nazmeen asserted in her testimony, as under;
"...Mai upar diye gaye pate par apne pariwar ke sath rehti hu. Mai housewife hu. Mai gwai dene ke liye aayi hu. Nazma meri mummy hai. Ye jo mere mummy par case laga hai wo galat hai kyuki meri mummy ne Rs. 10,000/- me bakra becha tha aur jisko bakra becha tha usne meri mummy ko cash me 10,000/- rupai diye the jisme sare Rs.1000/- ke note the. Meri mummy wo cash lekar samaan lene bazar chali gayi thi. Jab samaan lene ke liye dukaan wale ko paise diye to dukaanwale ne bataya ki nakli note hai. Dukaanwale ne police bulayi aur meri mummy par case ban gaya. Meri mummy ke un paiso me 3 note nakli nikle the. Meri mummy ne upar kahi sari batae police ko batayi thi aur police wale meri mummy ko uss aadmi ke ghar lekar gaye the jisne meri mummy ko paise diye the. Jisne paise diye the usko police ne nahi pakda aur meri mummy par jhootha case bana diya. Humne police ki aage bhi complaint ki, ki meri mummy ko jhoothe case me fasa diya hai, to policewale ne hame dhamki di ki jada shikayat ki to tumhe bhi andar kar denge. Phir hum majboor ho gaye the aur hamne kuch nahi kiya..."
(Emphasis supplied) 10.1. Relevantly, DW-1, upon being cross-examined by/on behalf of State, proclaimed as under;
"XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Jab ye ghatna hui tab mai 15/16 saal ki thi. Mai panchvi class tak padi hu. Ghatna ke samay mere papa auto chalate the. Meri mummy ghar par hi rehti thi. Uss samay hum Bawana JJ Colony me rehte the.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 20 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:11:17 +0530
Meri mummy ne jo bakra becha tha, wo hamne paal rakha tha. Usko mere papa chhota sa kharid kar lekar aaye the aur uske baad hamne us 2 saal pala tha. Usi bakre ke sath humne 2 bakre aur pale the. Usse pehle kabhi humne bakre nahi pale the. Wo 2 bakre humne baad me beche the. Uske baad humne koi bakra nahi pala. Meri mummy ne jisko bakra becha tha uska naam Raja tha wo bhi JJ Colony me rehta tha. Mai uska pita ka naam aur uska address nahi janti. Meri mummy ne bakra bechne ke avaj me koi receipt na to li thi nahi di thi. Humne meri mummy ko iss case me jhootha fasane ke liye koi likhit shikayat nahi di thi. (Vol. Unhone nahi li thi.) Humne iss tarah ki koi likhit shikayat by post ya courier se kisi police thane me ya kisi police officer ya kisi court me nahi bheji thi. Meri mummy Lal Quile ke saamne jo bazar hai wha samaan lene aayi thi. Mai apni mummy ke sath nahi thi, jab ye ghatna ghati thi. Jab hamne uss admi ka ghar dikhaya to mai bhi police ke sath gayi thi. 10,000/- rupai me se, jo 3 note nakli hata kar wo humne mummy ke case me hi lagaye the. Yeh kehna galat hai ki mai aaj court me apni mummy ke dwara bakra bechke 10,000/-rupai milne ke bare me jhooth bol rahi hu. Yeh kehna galat hai ki meri mummy ko pata tha ki uske paas nakli note hai. Yeh kehna galat hai ki mai apni mummy ko bachane ke liye aaj court me jhoothi kahani gadi hai ki meri mummy ko bakre bachne par Rs.10,000/- mile the aur usse wo samaan lene gayi thi. Yeh kehna galat hai ki meri mummy ke paas 4 note Rs.1000/- ke nakli the aur ye baat meri mummy janti thi aur meri mummy ne yeh baat jante hue, ek nakli note dukaandar ko samaan kharidne ke liye diya tha aur baad me meri mummy ke kabze se teen (3) Rs. 1,000/- ke nakli not aur baramad hue the. Yeh kehna galat hai ki main, apni mummy ko bachane ke liye, aaj court me bakre aur Rs. 10000/- ke bare me jhoothi gawai de rahi hu kyunki use pehle kabhi bhi maine ya meri mummy ne iss tarah ki koi baat khud ya apne wakil ke dwara court me nahi batay thi..."
(Emphasis supplied) CONTENTIONS OF STATE:
11. Ld. Addl. PP for the State outrightly submitted that from the material placed on record and, in particular, from the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, read in conjunction with each other, the role, complicity as well as active involvement of the accused in the commission of the offences SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 21 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:11:21 +0530 alleged against her stands proved. As per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-3/Sh. Bachu Chaudhary, PW-5/W/Ct. Meera, PW-6/Constable Inderjeet and PW-8/Ins. Jagdish Yadav have consistently deposed about the commission of incident by the accused on 20.11.2011. In particular, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-3 specifically asserted that on 20.11.2011, when he/PW-3 was present in his shop, at around 04:00 p.m., the accused reached there as well as purchased two gent's shirts for a total sale consideration of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred only) from him/PW-3. Further, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, accentuated that as per PW-3, the accused, at that point in time, gave a currency note of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination, which was suspected by him/PW-3 to be fake, which was taken into custody and was subsequently, revealed as fake Indian Currency note under the report, issued by Currency Note Press, Nasik. Further, as per Ld. Add PP for the State, PW-3 not only duly identified the accused as the perpetrator of the offences in question, rather, the version of facts deposed by PW-3 find credence under the testimonies of PW-5/W/Ct. Meera, PW-6/Constable Inderjeet and PW-8/Ins. Jagdish Yadav. Correspondingly, it was contended that under their respective depositions, PW-5/W/Ct. Meera and PW-8/Ins. Jagdish Yadav also proclaimed of recovery of three other FICN from the possession of the accused at the relevant point in time, clearly, indicating explicit mens rea on the part of the accused to commit the offences with which she has been charged. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that despite extensive and thorough cross examination of the said witnesses/prosecution witnesses, the defence has not been able to rebut the sterling testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, clearly, implying the only inference of SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 22 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:11:25 +0530 guilt of the accused. Further, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, omission of joining public witnesses, at the stage of apprehension and recovery from the accused is not detrimental to the prosecution case, especially when the said facts stand duly proved from the consistent testimonies of witnesses adduced by the prosecution. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, it is settled law that the police personnel are equally competent witnesses, as public/private persons/witnesses and there is no rule of law that the testimonies of police officials cannot form the basis of conviction of an accused. On the contrary, as per Ld. Addl. PP for the State, in the instant case, the accused has not been able to demonstrate/tender any plausible explanation of her being found in possession of such FICN as well as indulging in use/conveyance/deployment of the same from any documents, material or evidence places on record or even by adducing any evidence/defence witness in support of her case. Accordingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State reiterated that from the material, evidence and documents, placed on record the charges levelled against the accused stand duly proved, making her/accused to be held guilty for the same. CONTENTIONS OF DEFENCE:
12. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused outrightly asserted that from the material placed on record, the ingredients of offences under Sections 489B/489C IPC are not even prima facie made out against the accused in the instant case. At the outset, Ld. Counsel submitted that there are inherent material contradictions, grave infirmities and inherent improbabilities in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which go to the root of the matter and shake the version, put forth by the prosecution against the accused. In this regard, Ld. Counsel submitted that the SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 23 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:11:30 +0530 prosecution case cannot rest, on its own legs, in view of such infirmities. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there is no indication from the material placed on record as to how the concerned police officials reached at the alleged spot of occurrence, especially when no record of PCR Call/DD Entry, etc., have been placed on record regarding the alleged incident/place of incident in question. Correspondingly, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that there is variance in deposition of PW-3/Sh. Bachu Chaudhary, on one hand and that of PW-6/Constable Inderjeet and PW-8/Ins. Jagdish Yadav, on the other hand, in so far as they relate to the presence of the said police officials at the alleged place of occurrence at the relevant point in time. In particular, as per the Ld. Counsel, while, PW-3 asserted that initially, PW-6 was present at his shop and PW-8 reached there, subsequently. However, PW-6 and PW-8 deposed that they both reached at PW-3's shop simultaneously, while patrolling the area. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, in the instant case, no other witnesses/public persons have been joined in the investigation, except the police officials, necessitating strict scrutiny of the evidence of such police officials, in view of the settled law. In fact, Ld. Counsel asserted that no sincere attempts appear to have even been made to join public persons by the concerned police or of the police official's issuing necessary notice under Section 100 Cr.P.C. to such public persons, upon their refusal to join such search and seizure proceedings. Correspondingly, as per Ld. Counsel, no attempt was made even by PW-8/Ins. Jagdish Yadav to join any independent witness during the investigation, asserted to be conducted by him. Further, as per Ld. Counsel, the site plan, allegedly prepared at the instance of the complainant does not bear the signatures of SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 24 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:11:34 +0530 the complainant. It was further reiterated by the Ld. Counsel that there are serious lacunae and laxity on the part of the investigating officers, grossly affecting the prosecution case. Further, as per Ld. Counsel, none of the members of the raiding team offered their search prior to conducting raid, vitiating the entire search and recovery proceeding in the instant case. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, no seal handing over memo has been produced on record nor any evidence adduced, demonstrating that the seal, after its use was not handed over to independent witness, as mandated under law. On the contrary, in the instant case, the case property continued to be in the possession of the members of the team, not ruling out a possibility of tampering on behalf of the concerned police officials, in the instant case. It was further submitted that the investigation has not been fairly and properly conducted in the instant case and the accused has been falsely roped in the present case on the basis of concocted version put forth by various prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing submissions, Ld. Counsel submitted that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and, be acquitted of the charges levelled against her.
APPEARANCE:
13. The arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and that of Ld. Counsel for the accused have been heard as well as the entire case record(s), thoroughly perused. LEGAL PROVISIONS:
14. Before proceeding with the determination of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court deems it prudent to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/IPC as under;
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 25 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:11:39 +0530 "28. "Counterfeit"-A person is said to
"counterfeit" who causes 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. Explanation 1-It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact.
Explanation 2-When 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.
*** *** *** 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 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.
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. At the outset, it is observed from above that the definition of the term, 'counterfeiting' is provided under Section 28 of IPC, which encapsulates an act of causing resemblance of one thing with another, by a person, "intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced". Markedly, in this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hafiz Mohammad Ismail & Ors., SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 26 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:11:42 +0530 MANU/SC/0066/1960, where the Hon'ble Court, while delineating the contours of the provisions under Section 28 IPC, noted as under;
" 5. The main ingredients of counterfeiting as laid down in s. 28 are (i) causing one thing to resemble another thing, and (ii) intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception or (iii) knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised. Thus if one thing is made to resemble another thing and the intention is that by such resemblance deception would be practised or even if there is no intention but it is known to be likely that the resemblance is such that deception will thereby be practised there is counterfeiting. Then comes explanation 1 to s. 28 which lays down that it is not essential to counterfeiting that the limitation should be exact. Ordinarily counterfeiting implies the idea of an exact limitation; but for the purpose of the Indian Penal Code there can be counterfeiting even though the limitation is not exact and there are differences in detail between the original and the limitation so long as the resemblance is so close that deception may thereby be practised. Then comes the second Explanation which lays down that where the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the person causing one thing to resemble another thing was intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practised. This Explanation lays down a rebuttable presumption where the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby. In such a case the intention or the knowledge is presumed unless the contrary is proved.
6. This analysis of S. 28 shows that there is no necessity of importing words like 'colourable limitation' therein. In order to apply it, what the Court has to see is whether one thing is made to resemble another thing, and if that is so and if the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived by it there will be a presumption of the necessary intention or knowledge to make the thing counterfeit, unless the contrary is proved. What the court therefore has to see is whether one thing has been made to resemble another thing. If it finds that in fact one thing has been made to resemble another it has further to decide whether the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived. If it comes to the conclusion that the resemblance is such that a person SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 27 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:11:46 +0530 might be deceived by it, it can presume the necessary intention or knowledge (until the contrary is proved) and counterfeiting would then be complete. therefore the two things that were necessary to decide in this case were (i) whether the labels or wrappers on the soaps sold by the respondent were made to resemble the labels and wrappers of the genuine Sunlight and Lifebuoy soaps, and (ii) if they were so made to resemble, whether resemblance was such as might deceive a person If both these things were found the labels and wrappers in this case would be counterfeit and the necessary intention or knowledge would be presumed unless the contrary was a proved."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Ergo, in light of the foregoing it is quite perceptible that for ascertainment of counterfeiting, court has to determine as to whether one thing has been made to resemble another thing and upon an affirmative determination to the said effect, to evaluate, whether the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived. Subsequently, upon court's conclusion of such resemblance to be a nature, which may deceive a person, court may presume necessary mens rea, i.e., intention or knowledge, as per the Explanation appended to Section 28 IPC, until the same stands rebutted. Needless to mention, on a failure of an accused to rebut such presumption, counterfeiting under the said enactment would be deemed to be/considered to have been concluded.
17. Germane for the purpose(s) of presence discourse to note that from a conscientious perusal of the provisions under Sections 489A to 489E IPC, it may be deduced that the said provisions are designed1 to protect not only the economy of country, rather, also to provide adequate protection to currency notes and bank notes. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umashanker v. State 1 Balla v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 3.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 28 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:11:51 +0530
of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 642, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while inter alia, expounding the objective behind the enactment of the said provisions, remarked as under;
"7. Sections 489-A to 489-E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. The object of the 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 banknotes. The currency notes are, in spite of growing accustomedness to the credit card system, still the backbone of the commercial transactions by the multitudes in our country. But these provisions are not meant to punish unwary possessors or users.
8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Sections 489B and 489C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency-notes or bank-notes are forged or counterfeit". Without the afore-mentioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489B of I.P.C. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank- notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489C in the absence of the mens rea, noted above."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Girijesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2016 SCC OnLine All 4317 , while delving into the scope and ambit of the aforesaid provisions, noted as under;
"19. Sections 489-A to 489-E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. The object of the 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 banknotes.
20. Section 489-A not only deals with complete act of counterfeiting but also covers the case where the accused performs any part of the process of counterfeiting. Therefore, if the material shows that the accused knowingly performed any part of the SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 29 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:11:55 +0530 process of counterfeiting, Section 489-A becomes applicable.
21. Similarly Section 489-B relates to using as genuine forged or counterfeited currency notes or banknotes. The object of the legislature enacting this section is to stop the circulation of forged notes by punishing all persons who knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged do any act which could lead to their circulation.
22. Section 489-C deals with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeited currency notes or banknotes punishable. Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeited notes are necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Sections 489-C and 489-D. As was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese ((1986) 4 SCC 746):
(AIR 1987 SC 33), the expression "currency notes"
is large and wide enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of any country. Section 489-C is not restricted to Indian currency note alone but it includes the dollar also and it applies to American dollar bills.
23. The wording of Section 489-D is very wide and would clearly cover a case where a person is found in possession of machinery, instrument or materials for the purpose of being used for counterfeiting currency notes, even though the machinery, instruments or materials so found were not all the material particular required for the purpose of counterfeiting.
24. In K. Hashim v. State of T.N. ((2005) 1 SCC
237): (AIR 2005 SC 128), Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the provisions of counterfeiting in detail. Sections 489-A to 489-E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. Object of the 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 banknotes."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Markedly, from a scrupulous analysis of the aforesaid provisions, in particular, the provisions under Section 489B of IPC, it is observed that in order to attract culpability SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 30 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:11:58 +0530 under the said provision2, "(a) the prosecution is to prove that the relevant currency note or bank note was forged or counterfeit; (b) that the accused sold to or received from, some person, or trafficked in, or used as genuine the aforesaid currency note or bank note; (c) when the accused did so, he had knowledge or reason to believe about its being forged or counterfeit." Correspondingly, in this regard, reference is made to the decision in Jubeda Chitrakar & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, MANU/WB/2745/2019, wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, while dealing with the ingredients under Section 489B IPC and, in particular, while illuminating the contours of the words, 'otherwise traffics in', under the said provision, remarked as under;
"11. Section 489B uses the phrase "or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine". This phrase assumes importance in the context of the fact that the term "traffics" is not defined for the purpose of Section 489B or for the IPC generally. The phrase "or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine" is added on to a string of phrases which results in the sentence that delineates the ingredients of the offence as defined in Section 489B; the punishment for which is prescribed in that section. The activities which would amount to an offence punishable under Section 489B of the IPC are firstly, selling, buying or receiving. The provision to this effect in the section is "whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person".
Therefore, the involvement of at least two persons is necessary for performing the activity of selling, buying or receiving which would amount to an offence for the purpose of Section 489B. If that be so, an important issue for consideration would be as to whether any activity which falls into the concept "or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine" could be anything that could be treated differently from selling, buying or receiving or whether the term "traffics" has to be read ejusdem generis with "sells", "buys" or "receives". It was argued on behalf of the appellant on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Parakh Foods Limited vs. State of Andhra 2 Reference made to; State of Chhattisgarh v. Abid Ali Khan & Ors., MANU/CG/1518/2022.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 31 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:12:09 +0530
Pradesh and Anr. MANU/SC/1228/2008: (2008) 4 SCC 584 that the term "traffics" has to be read ejusdem generis with the phrases "sells to", "buys" and "receives from any other person" and that the junction of another person is necessary to accomplish such acts. It is here that use of the word "otherwise" gains critical importance. The word "otherwise" is used to indicate the opposite of, or contrast to, something already stated when used as part of a phrase as "or otherwise" (see Oxford Dictionary of English-3rd Edition). Even when the word "otherwise" is used not as part of a phrase as "or otherwise", but as an adverb or an adjective, such usages are also resorted to, to draw a contrast or distinction. The word "traffics" as well as the word "trafficking" and "trafficked" are used to describe the action of dealing or trading in something illegal. The activity or activities which would amount to "sells to", "buys" or "receives from" any other person, may require the participation of two persons to complete any such transaction. However, any activity which would fall within the phrase "otherwise traffics in"
does not indispensably require active participation of more than one person if noticeably sizable quantity of FICN is found to be in the possession of that person and such concealed possession cannot be treated as dormant possession. It is active transportation which amounts to trafficking. Any other mode of interpreting the phrase "or otherwise traffics" would dilute the rigour of law. A strict and literal interpretation of the penal provision contained in Section 489B of the IPC does not lead us to any other conclusion. Thus, the phrase "or otherwise traffics" in Section 489B of the IPC would take within its sweep, the action of dealing or trading in forged counterfeit currency note or bank note even otherwise than by selling, buying (purchase) or receiving. Therefore, the word "traffics" and the phrase "or otherwise traffics in" in Section 489B of the IPC are not to be read ejusdem generis with the words "sells", "buys" or "receives"; but ought to be read to understand that activities other than selling, buying or receiving would also fall into the basket of the incriminating factors which constitute the ingredients of the acts and omissions which is an offence as per that Section.
12. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Rayab Jusab Sama vs. State of Gujarat, reported at 1998 Cri LJ 942, held the possession of large number of fake currency notes to be a case of active transportation of such notes. That precedent was followed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 32 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.18 16:12:13 +0530 (Jabalpur Bench) in Shabbir Sheikh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Crl. Appl. Nos. 162, 452 and 453/2015 decided on 10.02.2018, holding that such cases cannot be treated as those of mere dormant possession but are of active transportation of fake currency notes which would fall within the sweep of Section 489B of the IPC. In holding so, it was stated that when the accused person is found carrying sizeable quantity of fake currency notes on a public road, or otherwise, in a concealed manner, it would amount to active transportation of such currency notes at the time when the accused person is apprehended. No explanation being offered by the accused person when questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. regarding the possession of the counterfeit currency, the burden of proof of facts within the knowledge of such person was held as not discharged by that person in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. We completely agree with those judicial precedents and follow them, they being applicable on the facts of these appeals, as we would elaborate hereunder."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Clearly, from a careful analysis of the aforesaid dictate, it is quite lucid that in order to attract culpability under Section 489B IPC, it is not necessary that two persons are shown to be involved in the offence, for the reason that the use of words, 'otherwise traffics in' under the said provision attracts culpability where sizable quantity of FICN is found to be in the possession of an accused. Needless to mention that under such circumstances, superior courts have persistently avowed that such concealed possession by an accused cannot be treated as dormant possession, rather, active transportation, which amounts to trafficking. In so far as culpability under the provisions under Section 489C IPC is concerned, culpability can be attracted against an accused, only, when the prosecution is unambiguously able to prove3, "(a) that he had in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes; (b) that he had the 3 Vijay Kumar v. State, MANU/DE/0139/1974.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 33 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:12:17 +0530
knowledge or there were reasons for him to believe that the currency notes or the bank notes which he possessed were forged or counterfeit; and (c) that he was having such counterfeit or forged currency notes or bank notes with the intention of using the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine." Reference in this regard is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Mohd. Farooque Yusuf Chaiwala & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/0563/2011, wherein the Hon'ble Court, observed as under;
"26. There is also another aspect of the matter. The ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 489B of the IPC are as follows:
(i) selling, buying or receiving from any person; or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine;
(ii) Any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note;
(iii) Knowing (or having reason to believe) that such note was forged or counterfeit.
27. The ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 489C of the IPC are as follows:
(i) possession by accused of any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note;
(ii) knowledge (or reason to believe) to the accused that it was forged or counterfeit; and
(iii) intention of the accused to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine.
28. Thus, to bring home the charge of offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC the prosecution is required to establish, inter alia, that the accused knew (or had reason to believe) the notes in question to be counterfeit or forged. The prosecution is also required to establish that the accused intended to use the same as genuine. It is true that such knowledge or existence of reason to believe, can be proved by, or can be inferred, only from circumstantial evidence..."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Here, this Court deems it further apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anis & Ors.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 34 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.18 16:12:21 +0530
v. State NCT of Delhi, MANU/DE/3344/2009, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while explicating the distinction between the provisions under Section 489B of IPC and Section 489C of IPC, noted as under;
"14. The main distinction between Section 489-B and 489-C of IPC is that in order to establish a charge under Section 489-B, the prosecution is required to prove the sale, purchase, receipt, trafficking or use of counterfeit currency as genuine, whereas to prove a charge under Section 489-C of IPC, the prosecution has to prove possession of counterfeit currency with the requisite knowledge and with intention to use the same as genuine or intending that the same may be used as genuine. If in a given case, someone finds currency notes lying somewhere and picks them up with intention to use the same as genuine, while believing the same to be counterfeit currency, he would be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 489C of IPC. If however someone consciously receives such counterfeit currency from another person with the requisite knowledge, he will be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 489C of the IPC. The question as to whether possession of counterfeit currency in a particular case falls within the purview of Section 489B or 489C of IPC, depends upon facts of each case including the explanation, if any, given by the accused as to how he came into possession of counterfeit currency notes."
(Emphasis supplied) APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
22. Therefore, being wary of the aforenoted legal principles, judicial dictates and the rival contentions of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as that of Ld. Counsel for the accused, this Court would now proceed with the determination on merits of the instant case. In particular and outrightly to the effect, 'whether from the material placed on record, culpability under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC can be attracted against the accused, namely, Nazma?' Conspicuously, in this regard, this Court deems it apposite to outrightly consider the contention of SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 35 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:12:26 +0530 the Ld. Counsel for the accused pertaining to the discrepancy between the depositions of PW-3/Bachu Chaudhary, PW-6/Constable Inderjeet and PW-8/Ins. Jagdish Yadav regarding the presence of PW-6/Constable Inderjeet and PW-8/Ins. Jagdish Yadav at the alleged place of occurrence. Markedly, in this regard, when the material placed on record is scrupulously analysed in light of the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, this Court finds credence in the said assertion of Ld. Counsel for the accused. In particular, in this regard, it is noted from the testimony of PW-3/complainant that he specifically avowed under his deposition that on the 20 th day of a month, which was cold, in the year, 2011, when he/PW-3 was present at his shop, bearing No. 56 at Link Road, Subhash Marg, Chandni Chowk, at around 04:00 p.m., the accused Nazma reached there and purchased two men's shirts for a total sale consideration of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred only). Further, as aforenoted, as per PW-3, the accused gave him a currency note of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), which he/PW-3 suspected to be forged. Significantly, as per PW-3, Ct. Inderjeet was present at his said shop, at that point in time and PW-3 handed over the said currency note of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination to Ct. Inderjeet to check it. Consequently, it was further proclaimed by PW-3 that even the said Constable found the said currency note to be forged and counterfeit and he/PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet kept the said currency note in an envelope as well as closed it. Significantly, PW-3 also proclaimed that after some time, SI Jagdish reached at the said spot/shop and he/SI Jagdish sealed the said currency note envelope. In utter contrast, PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet deposed that on 20.11.2011, he was posted as Constable at PS. Kotwali and was SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 36 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:12:31 +0530 on area patrolling duty in the area of New Lajpat Rai Market along with SI Jagdish Yadav. Further, as per PW-6, at about 04.15 p.m., they reached a place where some crowd was gathered and one Bachu Chaudhary/PW-3 produced the accused, Nazma as well as got his statement recorded. PW-6 further proclaimed that said Bachu Chaudhary/PW-3 also handed over one fake currency note of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination and SI Jagdish/PW-8 seized the said currency notes vide seizure memo, Ex. PW3/A, bearing PW-6's signatures at point B. Relevantly, PW-8/Ins. Jagdish Yadav deposed on the same lines as PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet, while inter alia asserting that on 20.11.2011, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS Kotwali and working as In-charge, Police Post Red Fort. Correspondingly, as per PW-8, he along with Ct. Inderjeet were on area patrolling and at around 04.15 p.m., they reached near shop no. 56 at Subhash Marg, where the shopkeeper, namely, Bachu Chaudhary/PW-3 produced accused Nazma along with one currency note of Rs.
1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination. PW-8 further asserted that said Bachu Chaudhary/PW-3 informed him/PW-8 that accused had given the said currency note to him/Bachu Chaudhary for purchasing two shirts. Further, as per PW-8, he/PW-8 checked the said currency note and suspected that it was fake. Ergo, PW-8 stated that he converted the said currency note in a parcel, sealing the same with the seal of 'JY' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A, bearing PW-8's signature at point B.
23. Quite noticeably (and it is reiterated), as seen from above, while PW-3/complainant asserted that PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet was already present at his shop when the accused had handed over the fake currency note to him/PW-3 and that PW-8 had SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 37 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.18 16:12:35 +0530 only, subsequently reached at the spot, once the fake currency note was already taken into possession by PW-6. However, in complete variance to the said proclamation of PW-3, both, PW-6 and PW-8, avowed that they had reached at PW-3's shop, while they were on patrolling duty in the area. In fact, as per PW-6, he only reached at/approached PW-3's shop as some crowd had gathered there and even PW-8, under his cross examination, inter alia asserted, "...Some public persons were gathered at the shop of the complainant...". However, nowhere under his examination in chief or under his cross-examination, PW-3 proclaimed of presence of any public persons at his shop at the relevant point in time or of any crowd having been gathered there when PW-6 and/or PW-8 reached at the spot/shop. In this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to refer to the relevant extracts from PW-3's cross examination, as under;
"XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Ld. Counsels for accused Nazma.
When accused came to my shop no other customer was present in the shop. I did not show the said currency note to any other shopkeeper or any other person known to me. I did not note down the serial number of currency note. I had no transaction with Ct. Inderjeet prior to the said date. I know that he was the beat constable of that area. Ct. Inderjeet came to my shop within 5-10 minutes. It is correct that I did not show the note to any neighbour and did not make a call on 100 number. Ct. Inderjeet did not conduct any enquiry about the genuineness of the note, however, he took me, currency note and the accused to the police station. Accused had come alone to my shop. We had gone to the police station on foot. The proceedings were conducted by police official regarding the currency note. I did not conduct any enquiry about the note. My statement was recorded in the evening but I do not remember the exact time. I do not know the name of person who recorded my statement. (Vol. SHO was present at that time.)..."
(Emphasis supplied) SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 38 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:12:39 +0530
24. Clearly, it is seen from above that even upon being cross examined, PW-3 merely asserted that the accused had come, alone to his shop and affirmed that she was not accompanied by anyone at that point in time. Correspondingly, PW-3 also affirmed that he had not shown the aforesaid currency note, allegedly handed over to him by the accused, to any other shopkeeper or any other of his acquaintances. In fact, PW-3 further affirmed of having made no call at 100 number regarding the incident in question. Ergo, under such circumstances, this Court distressingly records and reiterates that the reason/manner and presence of PW-6 and PW-8 at PW-3's shop at the relevant point in time is not forthcoming from the material placed on record. Needless to mention that despite the aforenoted variance in depositions of PW-3, on one hand and that of PW-6 and PW-8, on the other, the prosecution has opted not even to produce the relevant DD Entries pertaining to arrival and/or departure of the said police officials or even their duty records/register to demonstrate the presence of both, PW-6 and PW-8 at PW-3's shop/spot or even in the locality in question at the relevant point in time, creating a doubt in the version put forth by the prosecution. Needless to further mention that despite PW-6's and PW-8's assertion of presence of public persons at PW-3's/complainant's shop at the relevant point in time, no other public person has been joined in as witness of the alleged occurrence, except the complainant herein, to lend corroboration to the version of PW-6/PW-8. On the contrary, PW-8 affirmed under his cross examination that though, he had enquired from the public persons stated to be present at the complainant's shop when they (PW-6 and PW-8) reached there/at the spot, however, he/PW-8 did not record statements of any such public persons.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 39 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:12:43 +0530
25. Another disquieting feature in the instant case is that though, PW-5/W/Constable Meera deposed that she was called to the spot by the IO/Ins. Jagdish Yadav/PW-8, whereupon she conducted personal search proceedings of the accused and recovered 03 (three) currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denominations each from her/accused's possession, which were determined to be fake. However, nowhere under his testimony, PW-3 proclaimed of PW-5's reaching at the spot or of any such proceedings, conducted by her/PW-5 or by even by PW-8, at the spot. Needless to mention, the seizure memo of such/alleged recovered 03 (three) currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denominations each (Ex. PW5/A), does not bear the signatures of complainant/PW-3. Markedly, it is apposite to further note in this regard that, though, PW-8/Ins. Jagdish Yadav proclaimed that PW-5/W/Ct. Meera Tomar checked the purse of the accused and recovered three currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each from the said purse, which were also suspected to be fake due to lack of security features, however, the factum of recovery of such amount from any purse is not forthcoming under the deposition of PW-5/W/Ct. Meera Tomar. Needless to mention, neither any seizure memo of the said purse has been placed on record of this Court nor any such purse produced by any of the prosecution witnesses during the course of recording of evidence in the present case. On the contrary, PW-8, under his cross examination, went on to express his inability to even ascertain, whether the accused was carrying only one purse or one more bags at the relevant point in time. Here, this Court deems it pertinent to reproduce the relevant extracts from the cross examination of PW-8, as under;
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 40 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:12:48 +0530 "XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Ld. Counsels for accused Nazma.
Some public persons were gathered at the shop of the complainant. I had enquired said persons but did not record their statements. I myself checked the currency notes and did not take opinion of any expert before seizing them. I was carrying the sealing material etc. I called Ct. Meera just after reaching the spot. She came within 15-20 minutes of calling her. The bag/purse of the accused was searched at the spot itself. I made efforts to join the public persons at the time of seizure of currency notes but none came forward. I am not sure whether accused was carrying only one purse or one more bag. I recorded the statement of the complainant at the spot. From the spot we went to police post Red Fort. I along with accused, Ct. Meera and complainant went to police post Red Fort on foot. I prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded at police post. The signatures of W/Ct. Meera and Bachchu Chaudhary were taken. Ct. Inderjeet came to police post Red Fort after about two hours of sending rukka..."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Quite disconsolately, when the aforesaid extract(s) of PW-8's deposition is painstakingly analysed, several other omissions/lacunae in the prosecution case become quite apparent. In particular, this Court outrightly notes that, though, PW-8 declared under his cross-examination that the accused's purse was searched at the spot itself, and that he/PW-8 made efforts to join public persons at the time of seizure of currency notes, however, as aforenoted, neither the factum of recovery of any currency notes from the possession of the accused or from any alleged purse carried by her at the relevant point in time, forthcoming under the testimony of PW-3. Needless to reiterate that even the recovery memo, Ex. PW5/A pertaining to recovery of alleged three notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denomination each from the possession of the accused, counter signed by the complainant/PW-3. Correspondingly, SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 41 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:12:52 +0530 though, PW-8 asserted that he recorded the statement of the complainant/PW-3 at the spot, and thereafter, he/PW-8 along with the accused, W/Ct. Meera Tomar/PW-5 and the complainant/PW-3 went to the police post on foot, however, as aforenoted, PW-3 gave an altogether different version of happening. In fact, as aforenoted, PW-3 upon being cross examined avowed that PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet took him/PW-3, the accused as well as the currency note, which was handed over by PW-3 to PW-6, to the police station on foot, where the proceedings were conducted by police official, regarding the currency note. Correspondingly, PW-3 affirmed under his cross examination that his statement was recorded in the evening, however, expressed his inability to recollect the name of the person, who has recorded his statement. Clearly, this Court deems it further pertinent to reiterate that nowhere under his deposition, PW-3 gave even a slightest indication of presence of PW-5/W/Ct. Meera Tomar at the spot or of her conducting any recovery proceedings from the accused or of her/PW-5's accompanying the complainant as well as the accused to the police station. In fact, as aforenoted, there is also material discrepancy in the statements of PW-3 and PW-8, wherein, PW-3 asserted that he along with the accused and recovered currency note (as per Ex. PW3/A) were taken to the police station by PW-6. However, in complete variance, PW-8 asserted under his cross examination that he/PW-8 along with the accused, W/Ct. Meera Tomar/PW-5 and the complainant/PW-3 went to the police post on foot and that PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet reached at the police post Red Fort after about two hours of sending rukka.
27. Another glaring feature in the instant case is that, though, PW-8 proclaimed under his deposition that he had SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 42 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:12:56 +0530 prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, however, nowhere under his testimony, PW-3 proclaimed of having got any site plan prepared. In fact, on a conscientious analysis of the said site plan (Ex. PW7/C), it is noted that the said site plan does not even bear the signatures of the complainant. In so far as the seizure of the notes/FICN in question is concerned, perusal of the records demonstrate that PW-3 affirmed under his cross examination that the currency note which was allegedly handed over by the accused to him/the complainant/PW-3 was neither sealed in his presence, nor did he/PW-3 note down the serial number of said currency note. Pertinently, the said factor becomes quite significant when the testimonies of various other prosecution witnesses are analysed, in so far as they relate to the seizure and custody of the alleged recovered notes/FICN in question. In particular, in this regard, reference is made to the testimony of PW-10/ASI Ashok, who deposed that on 20.11.2011, he/PW-10 was posted as MHC(M) in the PS Kotwali and on the said day, PW-8/IO/SI Jagdish Yadav deposited the following articles in malkhana vide entry at Sr. No. 6626 in Reg.
No. 19; "(1) Two shirts of green colour in a transparent polythene bag and one multi-colour jute hand bag; (2) One white colour envelope sealed with the seal having impression 'JY', containing one currency note of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only); and (3) One white colour envelope sealed with the seal having impression 'JY', containing 03 (three) currency notes of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only)." PW-10 further produced the original Reg. No. 19, containing entry at Sr. No. 6626, copy of which relevant page of Reg. No. 19, containing entry No. 6626 is Ex. PW10/A (OSR). Quite startlingly, PW-10 further deposed that on 23.11.2011, the said SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 43 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:13:01 +0530 two envelopes, sealed with the seal of 'JY' were sent to RBI Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi, through PW-8/SI Jagdish Yadav, vide RC No. 122/21/11 (Ex. PW10/C), however, the same were returned by SI Jagdish Yadav and deposited in malkhana. However, in this regard, it is noted that nowhere under his deposition, PW-8 asserted of having removed the said two envelopes from the malkhana for their conveyance to RBI Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi and return on 23.11.2011, prior to their conveyance to Currency Note Press, Government of India, Nasik, Maharashtra or of the purpose of such removal and subsequent deposit of the said two envelopes in the malkhana. Quite evidently, one of the most disquieting feature of the instant case is that the entire proceeding related to/of deposit, transit and return of the currency notes on 20.11.2011 and 23.11.2011 continued to be conducted/carried out by IO/SI Jagdish Yadav/PW-8 alone, with the fate of the seal, after its initial usage not forthcoming from any material placed on record. In this regard, this court deems it apposite to note that no seal handing over memo to any independent or third party, person or witness has either been placed on record by the prosecution or the factum of such handing over has even been endeavoured to be proved by the prosecution through the testimony of any of the witnesses/independent witnesses in the instant case. In fact, there is nothing on record to indicate in the slightest, whether any attempt made even by any of the police officials/members of the team, who are stated to have conducted the search/recovery and seizure of the alleged FICN from the accused, to hand over the seal to any independent witness, after its use in the instant case. Correspondingly, in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show as to when the seal in question was finally taken back from SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 44 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.18 16:13:05 +0530 the possession of the police officials/members of the team, who are stated to have conducted the search/recovery and seizure of the alleged FICN from the accused, i.e., PW-5/W/Ct. Meera Tomar, PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet or PW-8/Ins. Jagdish Yadav, or whether the same continued to remain with them forever. Clearly, the seal during the entire interval reasonably appears to be within the reach of the police officials as well as the members of such raiding team. Ergo, under such circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. Notably, in this regard, this Courts deems it apposite at this stage to make a reference to the decision in Safiullah v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1992 SCC OnLine Del 516, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, whilst being confronted with the situation of akin kind, observed as under;
"9. ...The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore the possibility of tempering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused...
*** *** ***
11. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to the independent witness P.W.5. Even the I.O. P.W.7 does not utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of the raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out. Since the Inspector Omveer Singh, appearing as P.W.-8, has tried to improve his statement in the Court, to my mind, no reliance can be placed on his statement, particularly when the Investigating Officer and the Moharrar Malkhana do not say anything about the deposit of the CFSL form with the Moharrar Malkhana. In these circumstances SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 45 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:13:10 +0530 I am clearly of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove this link evidence to show that the sample parcel was not tampered with the anyone before it was examined by the C.F.S.L. and the benefit of the same must go to the appellant."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Strikingly, in the instant case, there is another significant and glaring irregularity, observable from a scrupulous analysis of the case law. In particular, it is unambiguously observed by this Court from a scrutiny of the case record(s) that there has been a significant and substantial delay in the samples being sent for their scrutiny/analysis at Currency Note Press, Nasik by the concerned police officials. Pertinent, in this regard to note that though, the articles/case property in the instant case was admittedly seized on 20.11.2011, i.e., the alleged date of incident as well as proclaimed to be deposited in the malkhana by PW-8/IO/SI Jagdish Yadav, however, it was only on 06.12.2011, after a significant and substantial delay, same/the case property was sent to Currency Note Press, Nasik by the IO through HC Sanjay, with no reasons for such delay forthcoming from the material placed on record. Quite evidently, all this while, the sample property was admittedly stated to be at the malkhana, where a possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out. Needless to mention, HC Sanjay has neither been cited nor adduced as prosecution witness before this Court to confirm the factum of him, transferring/conveying the case property from malkhana to Currency Note Press, Nasik. Relevantly, in respect of the foregoing, this Court deems it pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rishi Dev v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1800, wherein the Hon'ble Court explicitly observed as under;
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 46 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:13:14 +0530
"20. This Court is unable to agree with the approach adopted by the trial court, especially its observations highlighted above. The record of the case should contain entry in writing about the sample being sent for testing within the time specified by the Narcotic Control Bureau. A strict compliance of this requirement has to be insisted upon. The reason is this. The sample that is kept in a police malkhana, under the seals of the police officers themselves, is still definitely under the control of those police officers. There is every possibility that the samples could be tampered and again re-sealed by the very same officers by again affixing their seals. It is to prevent this from happening that earlier the sample is sent for testing to the CFSL the better.
21. The delay in sending samples to the CFSL has to be properly explained by the prosecution and further, such explanation can be accepted only where the prosecution shows that it made a genuine attempt to send the sample to the CFSL forthwith and that because of the excessive workload of the CFSL, the sample was returned and was unable to be tested. The record must show that such an attempt was made and the sample was returned for reasons not of the making of the prosecution. The lacuna in this regard cannot be permitted to be made up by oral evidence."
(Emphasis supplied)
29. Remarkably, it is further fitting to note here that it is the case of the prosecution that the seizure memo of the currency note bearing, serial no.; 5BK 589804 (Ex. PW3/A), allegedly handed over by the accused to the complainant at the relevant point in time for the purchase of shirts; seizure memo of currency notes bearing, serial nos.; 5BK 593715, 5BK 593721 and 5BK 589776 (Ex. PW5/A) and the seizure memo of two green colour shirts, in packed condition (Ex. PW5/D) were prepared by the IO/SI Jagdish Yadav/PW-8 at the spot. Correspondingly, as noted above, PW-8 asserted under his cross examination that he along with the accused, PW-5/W/Ct. Meera and the complainant/PW-3 went to the police post Red Fort on foot and PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet reached there after about two hours of sending rukka. Pertinent to further note that the endorsement (Ex.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 47 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:13:20 +0530 PW7/B) on the complainant's statement (Ex. PW7/A),
specifically records of the seizure of the aforenoted currency notes, prior to circulation of said rukka/complaint as well as registration of FIR. Correspondingly, similar assertion is made by PW-8, in his deposition, before this Court. Accordingly, under such circumstances, it quite understandable that the number of the FIR would have come to the knowledge of the IO/PW-8, only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot by PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet. Ergo, quite lucidly, the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo of the said currency notes as well as the aforenoted shirts, both of which documents are stated to have come into existence, prior to the registration of the FIR. However, surprisingly, from a perusal of the said documents, it is noted that the particulars of FIR are specified on the said seizure memos, that too, with same pen and colour as well as in running (handwriting), which fact has remained unexplained by/on behalf of the prosecution in the instant case. Needless to reiterate that no explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution as to how the FIR number surfaced on said documents, which are asserted to have been prepared, prior to the registration of the FIR, clearly, casting a further shadow of doubt on the prosecution's case. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1987 SCC OnLine Del 290, wherein the Hon'ble Court inter alia noted in an akin case, as under;
"...Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa Ex. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 48 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:13:24 +0530 copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. Consequently, in light of the foregoing discrepancies, omissions and lacunae in the prosecution case/on the part of the prosecution witnesses, in order to successful bring home guilt of the accused in the instant case, it was/became imperative for the prosecution to prove the recovery of the alleged FICN from the possession of the accused by means of the testimony of independent witnesses in the present case. However, in the instant case, not only has the prosecution failed to adduce any independent witness, rather, even genuine endeavour(s) on the part of the investigating authorities/police officials to join independent witnesses in the recovery process appear to be grossly wanting. The same is despite the fact that it is not the prosecution's case that no public witnesses were present on the spot. On the contrary, admittedly, as aforenoted, both, PW-6 and PW-8 deposed that crowd had gathered at PW-3's shop when they had reached there. Further, as hereinunder observed, PW-8 admitted under his cross examination that he had enquired from the said public persons, allegedly present at the spot, however, did not record their statements. Pertinent to further observe that though, PW-8 further avowed under his cross examination that SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 49 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:13:29 +0530 he made efforts to join the public persons at the time of seizure of currency notes and that no one came forward, however, despite the same, none of the police officials deposed whether any notice was served upon/to any such public person upon their refusal to join the investigation, clearly, demonstrating the absence of earnest attempts on the part of prosecution/investigating officers to take necessary steps at their end. Consequently, such omission on the part of the police officials/IO, etc., in the instant case, when seen in conjunction with the aforenoted grave lapses, cast a shadow of doubt on the recovery of FICN from the accused herein. Relevant in this regard to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Anoop Singh v. State, 1992 SCC OnLine Del 218, wherein the Hon'ble Court in an akin situation inter alia observed as under;
"Apart from this material discrepancy, there is also discrepancy regarding the alleged efforts made by the police for joining the independent public witnesses. R.K. Chadha had been brought by the police from the police station while coming to the spot and it is stated by all the witnesses except the I.O. that only some of the passers by were requested to join the raiding party and they declined expressing their own difficulties and had gone away, whereas the I.O. came up with the story that even the shop- keepers, whose shops were open at the time of occurence, had been requested to join but they had declined The other witnesses have categorically stated that no shop-keeer was asked to join the raided party.
It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shop-keepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shop-keepers because they could not have escaped SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 50 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:13:33 +0530 the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the I.P.C. It is not possible to believe only the I.O. that some of the shop-keepers were requested to join the raiding party when all other officials appearing in the witness box stated that no shop-keeper was requested to join the raiding party."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. Conspicuously, another disconcerting feature in the instant case is that nowhere in the deposition of the any of the prosecution witnesses/police officials, i.e., PW-5, PW-6 or PW-8, it is forthcoming that the accused was offered personal search of any of the members of the said team/members of police party that conducted search/recovery and seizure by the accused, prior to alleged recovery.
32. However, notwithstanding the foregoing lacunae in the present/prosecution case, presuming for the sake of argument that the currency notes under question were duly recovered from the possession of the accused, the requisite mens rea in the instant case on the part of the accused, in the considered opinion of this Court, has not been proved. In this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to note that it is conscious of the settled law 4 that the mens rea of offences under Sections 489B and 489C is, "..."knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or banknotes are forged or counterfeit"...". Further, this Court is cognizant that bereft of such mens rea, selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489B of I.P.C. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes is not sufficient to make out a case 4 Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 642.
SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 51 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:13:37 +0530
under Section 489C in the absence of the mens rea, noted above. Refrence in this regard is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sanskriti Jayantilal Salia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Writ Petition No. 3027/2018, dated 01.10.2018: 2018 SCC Online Bom. 2969 , in an akin context, explicated the law as under;
"10. Perusal of the said Section would reveal that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the said Section and use of the term "knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit" is the sine qua non for inviting penalty under the said provision. When mens rea is conspicuously absent, mere use of any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes cannot attract the provisions of Section 489(B). The essential ingredient of the said offence being that the person, who receives the notes has reason to believe that the said notes are forged or counterfeit. The burden to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the currency notes which were put to use / possessed by him were counterfeit or fake currency note is on the prosecution."
(Emphasis supplied)
33. Clearly, it is seen from above that mere use of FICN by any person, in the absence of proof of mens rea, i.e., knowledge or having reason to believe such note(s) to be forged or counterfeit, is not sufficient to bring home charges under Section 489B IPC. Correspondingly, on order to bring home culpability under Section 489C IPC, it is not sufficient for prosecution to prove mere possession on the part of an accused, rather, for successfully bringing home charges under Section 489C IPC, prosecution is required to prove conscious possession of fake or counterfeit currency notes on part of such an accused. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Allauddin Jallauddin Shaikh & Anr v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.426/2010, dated SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 52 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:13:41 +0530 16.02.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Court explicated the law as under;
"...The first and foremost ingredient of this Section is that the accused must possess forged or counterfeit currency notes. However, mere possession is not enough to record conviction for the offence under Section 489C of the IPC. What is required to prove next is conscious possession of fake or counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, prosecution is obliged to establish by adducing cogent and clear evidence that at the time of possessing forged or counterfeit currency notes, accused persons were knowing that what they are possessing are forged or counterfeit currency notes. Such knowledge or reason for belief can also be established by surrounding circumstances emerging on record as conscious possession is a state of mind and the same is required to be inferred by all attending circumstances brought on record. Therefore, fate of each case depends upon its own facts. With this let us examine whether prosecution has proved that both the Appellants-Accused were having conscious possession of fake or counterfeit currency notes with them on 31.3.2009..."
(Emphasis supplied)
34. Quite evidently, in the instant case, there is no direct evidence on record to demonstrate/reveal the mens rea of the accused at the relevant point in time. Correspondingly, when the circumstances of the case are conscientiously evaluated, such mens rea, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not even depictable/demonstrable, in the slightest, from the material placed on record. In this regard, this Court observes that, as aforenoted, PW-3 deposed under his examination-in-chief that when the accused deployed the fake currency note (seized vide memo Ex. PW3/A) to purchase the shirts from his/complainant's shop, PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet was present there and he ascertained the said note to be forged/counterfeit. Clearly, under such circumstances, it does not appeal as a normal human conduct on the part of the accused to openly deploy/use such forged/fake SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 53 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:13:46 +0530 currency note, that too, in the presence of a police official, knowing fully well that the said note was, in fact, forged. Simultaneously, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the accused endeavoured to run away or withdraw from the spot, once the note produced by her were allegedly determined to be forged. Needless to further mention that despite a thorough search of the accused's house, no incriminating material in the form of other forged notes, etc., were (admittedly) recovered from the possession of the accused or from her house, as deposed by PW-4/Ct. Raghvender and PW-7/W/HC Shashi in their respective depositions before this Court. Here, it is further pertinent to note that Ld. Addl. PP for the State heavily placed reliance on the statement of the accused, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to contend that since the accused under her said statement, did not deny of being in possession of the currency notes in question, her conviction can be premised on the basis of her said admission. However, the said contention too fails to impress this Court, so as to reach an unambiguous finding of guilt of the accused. In fact, this Court unwaveringly observes in this regard that the part of the answer given by the accused, cannot be used in the instant case, discarding the exculpatory part thereof, especially considering various lacunae in the case put forth by the prosecution, as above. Correspondingly, it is further noted in respect of the foregoing that this Court is cognizant of the settled law5 that the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be used for corroborative purpose, however, the same cannot be a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution or can be used to fill in the lacunae/gaps left by the prosecution in 5 Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350 and Ashok Singh v. State of U.P, 2016 SCC OnLine All 290.SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 54 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:13:50 +0530 its case. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh, (2002) 10 SCC 236, wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under;
"30. The statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. As held in the case of Nishi Kant [(1969) 1 SCC 347 : AIR 1969 SC 422] by this Court, if the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction."
(Emphasis supplied)
35. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 , in respect of the foregoing, noted as under;
"41. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that statement under Section 313 CrPC is recorded to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice as it requires that an accused may be given an opportunity to furnish explanation of the incriminating material which had come against him in the trial. However, his statement cannot be made a basis for his conviction. His answers to the questions put to him under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used to fill up the gaps left by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions. Thus, the statement of the accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, it can be used only for appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, though it cannot be a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. In case the prosecution evidence is not found sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The statement under Section 313 CrPC is not recorded after administering oath to the accused. Therefore, it cannot be treated as an evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, though the accused has a right if he chooses to be a witness, and once he SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 55 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:13:55 +0530 makes that option, he can be administered oath and examined as a witness in defence as required under Section 315 CrPC. An adverse inference can be taken against the accused only and only if the incriminating material stood fully established and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the same. However, the accused has a right to remain silent as he cannot be forced to become a witness against himself."
(Emphasis supplied)
36. Conclusively, in conspectus of the above, when the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses are scrupulously analysed, this Court unwaveringly reaches a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused, namely, Nazma. In particular, in this regard, this Court deems it apposite to reiterate, as under;
a) The reason/manner and presence of PW-6 and PW-8 at PW-3's shop at the relevant point in time is not forthcoming from the material placed on record;
b) There are significant contradictions in the deposition of various prosecution witness in relation to the presence of PW-6 and PW-8 at the spot. Pertinently, while, PW-3/complainant asserted that PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet was already present at his shop when the accused had handed over the fake currency note to him/PW-3 and that PW-8 had only, subsequently reached at the spot, once the fake currency note was already taken into possession by PW-6. However, both, PW-6 and PW-8, avowed that they had reached at PW-3's shop, together, while they were on patrolling duty in the area;
c) PW-6 and PW-8 deposed that they reached at the spot as crowd had gathered there, however, nowhere under his testimony, PW-3 proclaimed of presence of any public persons at his shop at the relevant point in time or of any crowd having been gathered there, when PW-6 and/or PW-8 reached at the spot;
d) Despite aforenoted discrepancies, the prosecution has opted not to produce the relevant arrival and/or departure of the said police officials or even their duty records/register to demonstrate the presence of both, PW-6 and PW-8 at the spot;
e) Further, despite PW-6's and PW-8's assertion of presence of public persons at the spot at the relevant point in time, no other public person has been joined in witness. In fact, PW-8 affirmed under his cross examination that though, he had enquired from the SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 56 of 61 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:13:59 +0530 public persons stated to be present at the complainant's shop when they (PW-6 and PW-8) reached there/at the spot, however, he/PW-8 did not record statements of any such public persons;
f) PW-5/W/Constable Meera deposed that she was called to the spot by the IO/Ins. Jagdish Yadav/PW-8, whereupon she conducted personal search proceedings of the accused and recovered 03 (three) currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denominations each from her/accused's possession, which were determined to be fake. However, nowhere under his testimony, PW-3 proclaimed of PW-5's reaching at the spot or of any such proceedings, conducted by her/PW-5 or by even by PW-8, at the spot;
g) Pertinently, the seizure memo of such/alleged recovered 03 (three) currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) denominations each (Ex. PW5/A), does not bear the signatures of complainant/PW-3;
h) PW-8, though, proclaimed that PW-5 checked the purse of the accused and recovered three currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each from the said purse, which were also suspected to be fake due to security features, however, the factum of recovery of such amount from any purse is not forthcoming under the deposition of PW-5/W/Ct. Meera Tomar. Correspondingly, neither any seizure memo of the said purse has been placed on record of this Court nor such purse produced as evidence during the course of deposition of any of the prosecution witnesses;
i) PW-8, though, declared under his cross-examination that the accused's purse was searched at the spot itself, and that he/PW-8 made efforts to join public persons at the time of seizure of currency notes, however, as aforenoted, neither the factum of recovery of any currency notes from the possession of the accused or from any alleged purse carried by her at the relevant point in time, forthcoming under the testimony of PW-3 nor even the recovery memo, Ex. PW5/A, counter signed by the complainant;
j) PW-8, though, asserted that he recorded the statement of the complainant/PW-3 at the spot, and thereafter, he/PW-8 along with the accused, W/Ct. Meera Tomar/PW-5 and the complainant/PW-3 went to the police post on foot, however, as aforenoted, PW-3 gave an altogether different version of happening. In fact, as aforenoted, PW-3 upon being cross examined avowed that PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet took him/PW-3, the accused as well as the currency note, which was handed over by PW-3 to PW-6, to the SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 57 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:14:03 +0530 police station on foot, where the proceedings were conducted by police official, regarding the currency note. Correspondingly, PW-3 affirmed under his cross examination that his statement was recorded in the evening, however, expressed his inability to recollect the name of the person, who has recorded his statement
k) Relevantly, though, PW-8 proclaimed under his deposition that he had prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, however, nowhere under his testimony, PW-3 proclaimed of having got any site plan prepared. In fact, on a conscientious analysis of the said site plan (Ex. PW7/C), it is noted that the said site plan does not even bear the signatures of the complainant;
l) PW-3 affirmed under his cross examination that the currency note which was allegedly handed over by the accused to him/the complainant/PW-3 was neither sealed in his presence, nor did he/PW-3 note down the serial number of said currency note;
m) Pertinently, though, PW-10 deposed that on 23.11.2011, the sealed envelopes with the seal of 'JY' were sent to RBI Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi, through PW-8/SI Jagdish Yadav, vide RC No. 122/21/11 (Ex. PW10/C), however, the same were returned by SI Jagdish Yadav and deposited in malkhana. However, in this regard, it is noted that nowhere under his deposition, PW-8 asserted of having removed the said two envelopes from the malkhana for their conveyance to RBI Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi and return on 23.11.2011, prior to their conveyance to Currency Note Press, Government of India, Nasik, Maharashtra or of the purpose of such removal and subsequent deposit of the said two envelopes in the malkhana;
n) The entire proceeding related to/of deposit, transit and return of the currency notes on 20.11.2011 and 23.11.2011 continued to be conducted/carried out by IO/SI Jagdish Yadav/PW-8 alone, with the fate of the seal, after its initial usage not forthcoming from any material placed on record. In fact, there is nothing on record to indicate in the slightest, whether any attempt made even by any of the police officials/members of the team, who are stated to have conducted the search/recovery and seizure of the alleged FICN from the accused, to hand over the seal to any independent witness, after its use in the instant case. Clearly, the seal during the entire interval reasonably appears to be within the reach of the police officials as well as the members of such raiding team. Ergo, under such circumstances, the SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 58 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:14:07 +0530 possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out;
o) There has been a significant and substantial delay in the samples being sent for their scrutiny/analysis at Currency Note Press, Nasik by the concerned police officials. Pertinent, in this regard to note that though, the articles/case property in the instant case was admittedly seized on 20.11.2011, i.e., the alleged date of incident as well as proclaimed to be deposited in the malkhana by PW-8/IO/SI Jagdish Yadav, however, it was only on 06.12.2011, after a significant and substantial delay, same/the case property was sent to Currency Note Press, Nasik by the IO through HC Sanjay, with no reasons for such delay forthcoming from the material placed on record. Quite evidently, all this while, the sample property was admittedly stated to be at the malkhana, where a possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out. Needless to mention, HC Sanjay has neither been cited nor adduced as prosecution witness before this Court;
p) Markedly, ideally, in the instant case, FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo of the currency notes as well as the shirts, allegedly recovered from the possession of accused, which documents are stated to have come into existence, prior to the registration of the FIR. However, surprisingly, from a perusal of the said documents, it is noted the particulars of FIR are specified on the said seizure memos, that too, with same pen and colour as well as in running (handwriting), which fact has remained unexplained by/on behalf of the prosecution in the instant case;
q) In the instant case, not only has the prosecution failed to adduce any independent witness, rather, even genuine endeavour(s) on the part of the investigating authorities/police officials to join independent witnesses in the recovery process appear to be grossly wanting;
r) Relevantly, nowhere in the deposition of the any of the prosecution witnesses/police officials, i.e., PW-5, PW-6 or PW-8, it is forthcoming that the accused was offered personal search of any of the members of the said team/members of police party that conducted search/recovery and seizure by the accused, prior to alleged recovery;
s) Notwithstanding the foregoing, presuming for the sake of argument that the currency notes under question were duly recovered from the possession of the accused, the requisite mens rea in the instant case on the part of the accused, in the considered opinion of this Court, has not been proved;SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 59 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:14:12 +0530
t) There is no direct evidence on record to demonstrate/reveal the mens rea of the accused at the relevant point in time. Further, such mens rea, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not even depictable from the material, forthcoming on the record of the this Court. In this regard, this Court observes that, as aforenoted, PW-3 deposed under his examination-in-chief that when the accused deployed the fake currency note (seized vide memo Ex. PW3/A) to purchase the shirts from his/complainant's shop, PW-6/Ct. Inderjeet was present there and he ascertained the said note to be forged/counterfeit. Clearly, under such circumstances, it does not appeal as a normal human conduct on the part of the accused to openly deploy/use such forged/fake currency note, that too, in the presence of a police official, knowing fully well that the said note was, in fact, forged.
Simultaneously, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the accused endeavored to run away or withdraw from the spot, once the note produced by her was avowed to be forged. Needless to mention that even despite thorough search of the accused's house, no incriminating material in the form of other forged notes, etc., were admittedly not recovered from the possession of the accused or from her house, as deposed by PW-4/Ct. Raghvender and PW-7/W/HC Shashi in their respective depositions before this Court; and u) Further, the part of the answer given by the accused under her statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be used in the instant case to bring home accused's guilt, discarding the exculpatory part thereof. It is a settled law that the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be used for corroborative purpose, however, the same cannot be a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution or can be used to fill in the lacunae/gaps left by the prosecution in its case.
CONCLUSION:
37. Comprehensively, in light of the foregoing, it is reiterated that from the material placed on record and arguments addressed on behalf of the State as well as by/on behalf of the accused, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden to prove its case 'beyond reasonable doubt' against the accused. On the contrary, in light SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 60 of 61 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.18 16:14:16 +0530 of the various contradictions, lacunae, and material omissions, as hereinunder observed, benefit of doubt must, in the considered opinion of this Court, accrue in favour of the accused. Needless to mention at this stage that it is trite law6 that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the accused should be considered innocent, till it is established otherwise. It is equally a settled law7 that in case where two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused and the other adversely against it, the view favouring the accused must be accepted.
38. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing discussion and being cognizant of the material brought on record, this Court unambiguously reaches a conclusion that the prosecution has failed in proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt in the present case. Ergo, accused, namely, Nazma is acquitted of the charges under Sections 489B and 489C IPC. Consequently, the accused, namely, Nazma is admitted to bail on her furnishing of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) along with one surety of the like amount, as per the provisions under Section 437A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/BNSS. Further, as requested, the bail bond be furnished by the accused within a period of one week from the date of this judgment.
39. File of the present case be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.18 16:14:20 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal) on 18.07.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 6 Meena v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21.7
Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398, Dhan Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1980) 1 SCC 605 and State of U.P. v. Nandu Vishwakarma, (2009) 14 SCC 501.SC No. 27553/2016 State Vs. Nazma. Page 61 of 61