The High Court at Calcutta has upheld the conviction of a man found in possession of counterfeit currency while simultaneously ordering his immediate release by modifying his original prison sentence to the duration already spent in custody. The ruling marks the conclusion of an appeal filed by Md. Ohidul Islam, who had been convicted by a trial court for the possession and circulation of fake Indian currency notes (FICN). By the time the appeal was processed, the appellant had already served three years, five months, and seventeen days of his initial three-year and six-month sentence, prompting the bench to align the final penalty with the time already endured in detention.

The underlying criminal case against the appellant stemmed from an operation conducted by law enforcement in the Murshidabad district of West Bengal. According to the prosecution, the Suti Police Station received intelligence on April 26, 2023, regarding a suspect intending to circulate counterfeit notes in a business transaction near Chander More. Acting on this tip, a dedicated police team was mobilized to monitor the area. On the following day, April 27, 2023, officers stationed themselves strategically at the site. At approximately 12:45 pm, the police intercepted a man arriving on a red Bajaj Platina motorcycle who matched the description provided by their source.

Upon detaining the individual, the police conducted a search in the presence of witnesses. The search yielded a significant cache of counterfeit currency concealed within the pocket of the suspect’s trousers. The recovered haul consisted of two separate bundles of fake notes, all of which featured a denomination of ₹500. One bundle contained 100 notes totaling ₹50,000, while the second bundle held 88 notes worth ₹44,000, bringing the total value of the seized fake currency to ₹94,000. Subsequent interrogation of the suspect revealed that these notes were reportedly sourced from an agent located across the border in Bangladesh.

The matter proceeded through a full trial, which saw the rigorous examination of 12 prosecution witnesses, including three key individuals who witnessed the seizure of the contraband. The investigation also produced 20 distinct exhibits, most notably an expert forensic report that confirmed the notes were counterfeit and did not conform to the standards of genuine Indian currency. On January 29, 2026, the Additional Sessions Judge at the Fast Track Court in Jangipur, Murshidabad, found the evidence conclusive, convicting the appellant under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court sentenced him to three years and six months of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹5,000, which carried a default clause in the event of non-payment.

During the appellate proceedings, the defense acknowledged the weight of the evidence presented against the appellant. In a notable procedural move, counsel for the appellant informed the Court that although the defense had valid legal grounds to challenge the conviction on its merits, the appellant wished to forgo a prolonged legal battle. This decision was primarily driven by the fact that the appellant had already served nearly the entire duration of his court-mandated imprisonment. However, the Court underscored a vital principle of criminal jurisprudence, noting that once a legal appeal is formally admitted, it cannot be summarily dismissed or treated as "not pressed."

Justice Jay Sengupta observed, “Once an appeal is admitted, it cannot not be disposed of as not pressed and has to be decided on merits.” Upholding this mandate, the Court conducted a comprehensive review of the case files and trial records. Justice Sengupta confirmed that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond any reasonable doubt, noting that the seized notes, the testimonies of the seizure witnesses, and the conclusive forensic expert opinion left no room for judicial intervention regarding the conviction itself.

The Court further noted the failure of the accused to provide a credible explanation for the recovery of the counterfeit bundles from his person. Consequently, the conviction was upheld in its entirety, as the Court found no reason to deviate from the findings rendered by the trial court. The focus of the bench then shifted to the proportionality of the punishment in light of the appellant's current situation. Given that the appellant had already remained incarcerated for three years, five months, and seventeen days, the Court determined that the ends of justice would be met by adjusting the remaining period of the sentence.

“Considering the above, the other evidence and the materials on record, I find no reason to take a different view that the Trial Court, as regards the conviction of the appellant,” Justice Sengupta stated in his concluding remarks. The High Court consequently modified the sentencing component of the trial court’s judgment to the period already undergone by the appellant.

The High Court directed that the appellant be released from custody immediately, provided that the initial fine of ₹5,000 imposed by the trial court had been satisfied. If the fine remained unpaid, the release was conditioned upon the payment of the amount along with the completion of necessary administrative and judicial formalities. The Registrar of the High Court was ordered to transmit the records and a certified copy of the judgment to the trial court via special messenger to expedite the release process. By finalizing this order, the Court brought the matter to a definitive close, balancing the severity of the crime—which threatened the integrity of the national currency system—with the reality of the time already served by the convicted party.