Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Fajlur Rahaman Sk @ Fajlur Rahaman vs State Of West Bengal on 20 September, 2023
20.09.2023
Serial no.4
Piya
CRR 984 of 2019
Fajlur Rahaman Sk @ Fajlur Rahaman
vs.
State of West Bengal
Mr. Arnab Chatterjee
Mr. Amanul Islam
Mr. Sourav Mukherjee
... for the petitioner
Ms. Zareen N. Khan
Mr. Md. Kutubuddin
... for the State
The present revision arises out of a judgment and order
dated 15th February, 2019 passed by the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. IV, Krishnagar,
District Nadia in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2018
thereby allowing the criminal appeal on contest in part and
affirming the judgment and order of sentence & conviction dated
4th August, 2018 & 9th August, 2018 respectively passed by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Krishnagar, District
Nadia in connection with Sessions Trial No. IV(1)2013, Sessions
Case No. 15(11)2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 2083 of 2010
arising out of Dhubulia Police Station Case No. 287 of 2010
dated 26th July, 2010 under Sections 489B/489C of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 only to the extent that the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court for commission of the offence under Section 489C of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 is affirmed and further directing the
appellant to appear before the learned Trial within one month
from the date of order to serve out the sentence for commission
of offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
In Anikul and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
(CRA 123 of 2019, CRA 37 of 2019, CRA 189 of 2017 and CRA
702 of 2018) decided on 29.08.2022 reported in (2022 SCC
Online Cal 2451), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referred the
said matter to a larger Bench in respect of the following points:-
In the said judgment at para 40, the Court held:-
"40. Thus the term „possession‟ in some of
the judgments have been interpreted to have an
extended meaning equivalent to „otherwise
traffics in‟ while a set of judgments have
refused such an interpretation. In view of such
conflicting decisions referred to above as has
been pointed out by the learned Advocates
appearing for the State as well as the
appellants, I am of the opinion that the following
issues arise for reference to be decided by a
Larger Bench:
1) Whether the aid of „presumption‟ is available
when the seizure of FICN is effected from the
possession of an individual?
2) If quantity/volume of FICN is a ground of
„presumption‟, what would be the cut off
number for presuming that the „possession‟
was for the purpose of „otherwise traffics in‟?
3) When substantial number of FICN are
recovered from the possession of a security
personnel associated with the Government
i.e. Police, CISF, Defence Forces etc. can it be
presumed that the ingredients of the term
„otherwise traffics in‟ used in Section 489B of
the Penal Code, 1860 is automatically
attracted?
4) Do seizure from the possession of an
individual of High Quality Counterfeit Notes
(as referred to in the provisions of UAPA,
1967), opined by an Expert automatically
attract the provisions of Section 489B of the
Penal Code, 1860?"
In the present case also the said questions raised are
very relevant and important for its proper adjudication and the
facts and circumstances of the case in Anikul and Anr. Vs. State
of West Bengal & Ors., (CRA 123 of 2019, CRA 37 of 2019, CRA
189 of 2017 and CRA 702 of 2018) is very similar to the facts
and circumstances of the present case before this Court.
Considering the said position, the present matter should also be
referred to the larger bench to avoid conflicting decisions.
Accordingly let the records of CRR 984 of 2019 be placed
before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court at
once.
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with
all necessary legal formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
