Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The packet was again sealed on 22.12.2012 and forwarded to BNP, Dewas, M.P., for the expert opinion. The 'Examination Report' dated 06.03.2013 opining that the seized notes were 'counterfeit Notes' were given by BNP, Dewas.

8. During the investigations, efforts were made to ascertain the identity of Kuldeep Singh Dua and his whereabouts, but to no success. In regard to the error in the counting of the notes, it was ascertained to be a human error at the time of counting of the notes.

16. The Ld. ASJ has failed to appreciate that the Panchnama dated 11/12.09.2012 was prepared by the Custom Officer at the spot, which was duly signed by the independent witnesses, who later identified the Respondent in the Court.

17. The error in counting the FICNs and shortfall of one note in the denomination of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- each, was due to human error, and cannot be considered as a ground to disbelieve the recovery itself. It has also not been appreciated that this discrepancy in the counting of notes, had been mentioned in the Chargesheet itself. Furthermore, the Statement of the Respondent under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein he admitted his guilt, has also not been considered.

59. PW11 further deposed that on re-counting, the discrepancy noted in the letter from Bank Note Press, Dewas was correct, but it was explained that the discrepancy crept because of human error. The sealed packets were again sent to Bank Note Press, Dewas from where the Expert Report dated 06.03.2013 which is Ex.PW9/E, was received in a sealed cover which is Ex.PW11/E in CBI office. As per this Expert Report, the notes sent for examination (and which were seized from the Respondent), were found to be counterfeit notes.

65. It is also pertinent to significant to note that the explanation given for discrepancy in the serial numbers of two notes in the series of Rs.500/- is partly explainable from the fact there was one note number had been repeated twice i.e., 7BK 144652 (500 Denomination).

66. The explanation given on behalf of the Prosecution that the discrepancy in counting the Notes leading to one short in the Bundle of Rs 1000/- denomination, may have been on account of human error, cannot be ignored. This is also evident from the fact that in the serial number from 83 to 100 of the Notes of Rs.1000/- denomination, there is only a discrepancy of mentioning the serial number wherein the number had been indicated as '5AG 664***' , when in fact it should have been '5AG 674***'.