Kanik Mia vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 5326 Cal

04.10.2021

TN

CRA 678 of 2013 IA No: CRAN 1 of 2013 (Old No: CRAN 2579 of 2013)

In the matter of: Kanik Mia

... appellant

Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, Mr. Parvej Anam .... for the appellant

Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwal, Mr. Pratick Bose .... for the State

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that none of

the ingredients of Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),

on which the appellant was convicted, was proved by any

cogent evidence whatsoever.

Learned counsel places particular reliance on the

answers given by the P.W.10, the Investigating Officer (IO), in

his cross-examination, which, in his submission, are as vague

as possible.

It is further contended that most of the prosecution

witnesses were members of the raiding party.

Only three of the witnesses were apparently

independent. It is contended that even in the evidence of the

said witnesses, that is, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9, most of whom

are chance witnesses, the ingredients of Section 489C have not

been established.

As such, it is contended that the appellant was convicted

without any basis.

Learned counsel appearing for the State contends that

the depositions of P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9 were sufficient to

corroborate the prosecution case. Since the entire chain of

events, as alleged against the appellant, was clearly borne out

by such evidence, minor discrepancies and/or technicalities in

the deposition of the IO itself cannot vitiate the evidentiary

value of the prosecution witness.

Section 489C of the IPC is as follows:

"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."

The essential ingredients of the said section is that the

accused must have knowledge or reason to believe the

currency notes in his possession to be forged or counterfeit and

the intention of the accused to use the same as genuine or that

those may be used as genuine.

In the present case, as rightly argued by learned counsel

for the appellant, the cross-examination of the P.W.10, that is,

the IO, is not only vague and evasive, but fails to corroborate

the prosecution case on the most important issues. The

statements made by P.W.10 in his cross-examination clearly

show that, not only the statements under Section 161 and/or

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of none

of the accused persons were taken, many of the alleged eye-

witnesses were not even produced to corroborate the

prosecution case, although the place of occurrence is

admittedly thickly populated, where there are several kinds of

shops. None of such shop-keepers who were, as per the

admission of the IO in his cross-examination, surrounding the

spot at the time of occurrence, was called by the IO, nor any

papers were seized from the raiding party to show that they

were part of the raiding party. Even the spot of seizure was not

noted in the case diary, nor was there any note in the case

diary about the particulars of the bus, from which the

appellant allegedly alighted.

The IO could neither say the serial number of the

currency notes nor did he call the seizure witnesses at the time

of alleged sealing of the packet for their identification.

It is further revealed from the cross-examination of the

IO that he has made self-contradictory statements inasmuch

as he states first that there is no note about the condition of

the currency notes, which were seized by the raiding party in

the case, as to whether the notes were in sealed and packed

condition or in loose condition whereas, on the other hand, the

IO states that the said notes were not in sealed, packed

condition and that the IO himself sealed and packed the

currency notes after receiving those.

That apart, the so-called chance witnesses, who

corroborated the prosecution case, merely corroborated the

alleged events of the appellant getting down from a bus at the

relevant point of time and of the raiding personnel seizing the

currency notes-in-question from the possession of the

appellant.

However, there is nothing in the evidence of the IO or on

the record to directly connect the seizure of the particular

currency notes-in-question from the appellant.

More importantly, it has not been established at all, let

alone beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant had any

knowledge or had reason to believe that the notes-in-question

were intended to be used for forging or counterfeiting any

currency note or bank account. In the absence of any proof as

to the intention of the appellant to use the notes as genuine or

knowledge that those may be used as genuine and/or any

knowledge on the part of the appellant or even the appellant

having any reason to believe the same to be forged or

counterfeit, the prosecution failed miserably to prove any of the

essential ingredients of Section 489C of the IPC.

Accordingly, there was no justification to convict and

sentence the appellant under the said section.

Accordingly, CRA 678 of 2013 is allowed, thereby setting

aside the judgment and order of conviction dated July 17, 2012

and July 18, 2012 passed by the Additional District and

Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court at Malda in Sessions

Trial No.04(1)/2012 arising out of Sessions Case No.364/2011

and the consequential sentence awarded against the appellant.

The appellant is hereby acquitted of the charges framed

against him and is discharged from any bond and/or

condition, if furnished by the appellant, in connection with any

bail application with respect to the present conviction at any

point of time.

IA No: CRAN 1 of 2013 (Old No: CRAN 2579 of 2013) is

also disposed of accordingly.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied

for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the

requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)