Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jahangir Sikder vs State Of West Bengal on 22 September, 2023
22.09.2023
Serial no.11
Piya
CRA 15 of 2019
Jahangir Sikder
vs.
State of West Bengal
Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra
... for the State
The present revision arises out of a judgment and order
dated 10th December, 2018 passed by the learned Additional
District and Session Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnagar, in Session
Case no. 25(7) 2011 and in Session Trial No. VIII (August) 2011,
R. No. 51/15 in reference to G.R. Case No. 26 of 2010 arising out
of Krishnagunj P.S. Case no. 2 of 2010 dated 03.01.2010 under
Section 489B/489C of IPC, convicting the appellant under
Section 489(C) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.
5000/- (Rupees five thousands) i.d. S.I. for 2 months, and
acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 489(B) of
I.P.C.
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 15 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.)
