9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case as alleged against the appellant and co-accused namely, Monirul Islam (a juvenile in conflict with law) is to the effect that on 10th October, 2013 at about 10:35 hrs. Amit Bhakat, PSI of Police, de-facto complainant in the instant case attached to Samserganj Police Station received secret information from source that two persons were coming from Baisnavnagar area with fake Indian currency notes (in short 'FICN'). They would reach Dhulian ferry ghat for delivering the same as genuine. He diarised the information vide Samserganj Police Station G.D. Entry No. 491 dated 10th October, 2013 and as per the direction of Officer-in-charge, Samserganj Police Station he proceeded to the spot with other police personnel after making a diary entry being Samserganj Police Station G.D. Entry No. 492 dated 10th October, 2013. The raiding party arrived at Dhulian ferry ghat around 10:50 hrs. and kept watch. At that time the source pointed out two persons who were moving suspiciously in the said ferry ghat. Seeing the police party the persons tried to flee away but they were apprehended. In presence of local witnesses, the aforesaid persons were searched and four bundles containing 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the examination of the appellant under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was not in accordance with law. He also submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was trying to use the currency notes as genuine. Hence, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code is not disclosed in the instant case. 4. Mr. Sanjay Bardhan, appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of official witnesses clearly established that a large volume of FICNs was recovered from the appellant and co-accused person. Discrepancy in the evidence of PW 1 with regard to the volume of seized currency notes appears to be a slip of tongue. Number of currency notes seized has been clearly reflected in the First Information Report, seizure list which was contemporaneously prepared at the time of seizure. Signatures of the witnesses and accused persons were recorded in the FICNs seized in the case. Possibility of planting and false implication, therefore, are wholly ruled out. Independent witnesses were extensively cross-examined with regard to their previous statement before the police and, therefore, have been wholly discredited. There are ample mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. They were extensively cross-examined with regard to their previous statements before police officer. 8. PW 8 (Krishna Mukherjee) collected the opinion of the expert from Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd., Shalboni. He proved the report (Exhibit 8). 9. PW 9 (Brojogopal Debnath) is the Investigating Officer in the instant case. He submitted charge sheet. 10. From the consistent evidence of the members of the raiding party i.e. PW 1 to PW 5, I have no doubt in my mind that four bundles containing 100 numbers of currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- each, amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-, suspected to be fake, were recovered from a black plastic carry packet carried by the appellant in a red and black carry bag. No doubt there are some discrepancies between the evidence of PW 1 in court and the FIR with regard to the number of FICNs recovered from co-accused Monirul Islam. However, in view of the entries made in the seizure list (Exhibit 2) and the number of FICNs produced in court (Material Exhibit 1 series), I am of the opinion that such discrepancy in the evidence of PW 1 with regard to the number of FICNs seized from Monirul Islam was an inadvertent mistake and does not affect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notes or bank notes with the knowledge or reasonable belief that the said notes are forged or counterfeit is said to have committed the offence. Hence, sale, purchase or receipt from any person, or otherwise trafficking in counterfeit currency notes as genuine is a sine qua non of such offence. There is no evidence that the appellants had sold, received or used any counterfeit notes. However, it has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that the appellant was "otherwise trafficking in" counterfeit notes by knowingly transporting a large volume of forged currency notes in a bag through a public road and had reached the ferry ghat when they were apprehended. Hence, he had committed the offence under section 489B of the Indian Penal Code. 16. What would the expression "otherwise traffics in" mean in the context of aforesaid offence? 17. In K. Hasim Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 128, the Apex Court interpreted the object of section 489B of the Indian Penal Code as follows:- "42. Similarly Section 489B relates to using as genuine forged or counterfeited currency notes or bank notes. The object of Legislature in enacting this section is to stop the circulation of forged no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal under section 489B of the IPC in the present case. 22. Lastly, it has been argued that examination of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not in consonance with the law. Reliance has been placed on Mongat Ram Singh & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 (1) CHN 421 in that regard. I have gone through the examination of the appellant under sections 313 Cr.P.C. Although the questions posed to the appellant may have been framed in a more elegant manner, impact of such questions and the intelligent answers given by the appellant to them, in my estimation, does not give an impression that the appellant failed to understand the meaning and purport of those questions and had suffered any prejudice in that regard. In the cited decision, this court held that questions posed to the appellant were of such nature that it had caused prejudice to the appellant. In fact, the prosecution also admitted to such fact. In the present scenario the aforesaid ratio is clearly distinguishable for the reasons recorded hereinabove. 23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 489C o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
