Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This court is not unmindful that this Najrul Sk. could not be identified by him on dock. He has proved the seizure list which was marked as Exbt. 1. He also deposed that the accused persons and the witnesses also signed on the seizure list. He further deposed that he also prepared seizure list, prepared labels and took the signatures of the witnesses and accused persons on the seizure list. He also identified one label relating to seizure from the appellant No. 1 which was marked as Exbt. 2/1. This witness also identified another such label which was marked as Exbt. 3/1 relating to seizure from accused No.2. He also identified the Fake Currency Notes which was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. He duly proved the complaint. From his cross-examination it appears that the place of occurrence was five minutes journey by vehicle from English Bazar Police Station and he directly went to Sadullapur without going to the police station. He duly corroborated the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 on materially particulars. This court is not unmindful that the labels were not fixed on the FICNs or in other words those were not pasted on the notes. We must keep in mind that such notes were to be examined as to their authenticity and as such he (PW 3) thought it wise not to paste the label on the bundle of notes. In his cross-examination, he also deposed that the FICNs were recovered from the pocket of each accused person. It is true that he could not say whether those notes were recovered from the pocket of the shirt or trouser of the accused person. This is not a material discrepancy and it can safely be overlooked. It is true that in the seizure list it was not mentioned from which portion of the body those FICNs were seized this may be treated as omission but this cannot be treated as vital commission considering otherwise establish evidence.

This Court is also not unmindful of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chanduri lakshmanachari (supra) that in a case of recovery of huge quantity of counterfeit notes from the possession of the accused itself justifies presumption against the accused. In that case before the floor of the Andhra Pradesh High Court the accused could not make out a specific case as regards the motive or reason of false implication like the present case and in that case the A.P. High Court held that the accused was rightly held guilty in respect of the offence under Section 489C of the Code. Similarly, the learned trial court rightly relied on the decisions in Basi Reddy (supra), Sathpathi Natarajan (supra) and Satya Marayana (supra). This court is satisfied that actually on the date of the incident rupees one lakh each FICNs were seized respectively from these two accused persons all of which were of denomination of one thousand (1000/-) rupee notes having a particular series No.6CA (seized from the appellant no.2) and the series of notes recovered from the appellant no.1 were 6CA and 2BK. Considering the huge recovery made there is no reason to fathom what was in the mind of the appellants. Taking the risk of repetition I like to cite here the decision of the Apex Court in Punnuswamy (Supra). It cannot be said that they were in possession of such notes without knowing those to be FICNs. To swallow the argument of the defence on this point cannot do justice in a criminal trial like this. This Court reiterates that these accused persons were in possession of those notes knowing those to be FICNs. The report of the expert which was marked as exhibit under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. (which might have been also marked as exhibit under Section 292 of the said Code) goes to show that all those notes were counterfeit notes.

It is true that the learned trial court acquitted the accused persons in respect of the charge punishable under Section 489B of the IPC and the State did not prefer any appeal as against that order of acquittal but considering the recovery of such huge FICNs the court could have presumed that the accused persons were in possession of such huge FICNs only for the purpose of possession only. The intention is also to be derived from the circumstances and also the quantity of notes recovered. The intention of the appellants convicts was clear that they were trafficking those FICNs. Be that as it may, I am not going to reopen that chapter or reverse the order of acquittal in respect of the charge under Section 489B of the IPC as not notice was given to the accused appellants.

Before I part with the judgment I like to say that the Fake Indian Currency Notes are damaging the fiber of the financial system of our country. The economic prestige has also been lowered down in the neighboring countries. The countries like Bhutan and Nepal will not accept any Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- or 1,000/- on this apprehension that those may be fake. This court is coming across several such cases of FICNs and unfortunately only the carriers of such notes are apprehended by the police or other such agencies like BSF etc. It is the duty of the investigating agency to unearth from whose possession such carriers are getting such FICNs or for whom those were meant for that is who would have been the receivers of such FICNs from such carriers. In not a single case of this nature that is under Section 489 B or 489C the investigating agency has failed to investigate or crack wherefrom those notes were collected by the receiver or for whom those were meant for. If the police cannot reach up to that extent, such type of crime cannot be curbed. The investigating agency should not keep in its mind what would be the result of trial against those persons without any recovery being made from them.