Hashibul Mondal vs State Of West Bengal & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 6438 Cal

22.09.2023 Serial no.20 Piya

CRA 608 of 2019 Hashibul Mondal vs.

State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury Mr. Ashok Das ... for the State

The present revision arises out of a judgment and order

of conviction and sentence dated 26.02.2019 and 27.02.2019

respectively passed by the learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Jangipur, District

Murshidabad in ST no. 3(7)/2018, S. Sl./CIS no. 56/2018

arising out of G.R. no. 2262 of 2017 in connection with

Sagardighi P.S. Case No. 518/2017 dated 13.11.2017 convicting

the appellant for the offence punishable under Section

489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the

appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to

pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous

imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under

Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code and further sentencing

the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and

to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous

imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under

Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code.

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 CRA 608 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.)