The court held that conviction for possessing counterfeit currency requires clear evidence of conscious possession and intent to use, which was unmet in this case.

ORDER :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

The instant criminal revision case was preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned appellate Court against the present petitioner whereby the petitioner/A1 and A2 found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 489 (c) IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three months.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is baseless and illegal. The ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 489 (c) IPC has not been properly made out by the prosecution for which the order of conviction and sentence is perverse. He further submits that no independent witness has proved the prosecution case regarding recovery of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court has not properly dealt with the issue thereby the order of conviction is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Court has properly gone through the evidence on record and also perused the conduct of hostile mediators, who were influenced by the accused person and has suppressed the truth, thereby, the other witnesses i.e., PWs.3 and 4 supported the prosecution case and also asserted the presence of the mediators at the time of seizure. Hence, the order of conviction against the present petitioner is maintainable. He further argued that the learned appellate Court also decided the issue properly, thus, there is no merit in the instant criminal revision case.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. To ascertain the factum as well as the probative value of the evidence before the learned trial Court, it is required to set out brief note of the prosecution case as follows:-

On 17.01.2006, Sub-Inspector of Police received information about circulation of fake currency notes then he collected two mediators and proceeded to a market area at Donkarai; petitioner and A2 were found at the shop of petitioner, after found the police staff, they tried to abscond, police personnel apprehended them and effected their arrest. On interrogation in the presence of mediators, both of them have confessed their involvement in the circulation of fake currency notes and also named another person to be their co-accused, A1 produced 24 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and from the possession of A2, Rs.5900/- with nine Rs.500/- denomination and fourteen Rs.100/- denomination counterfeit currency notes were recovered, they were arrested by two separate arrest memos and panchanama/seizure list was also drafted and prepared at the same place. Seizure of currency notes were sent for examination before the Director, FSL, Hyderabad. FSL sent opinion that seized notes are not genuine one.

6. To prove the case, prosecution has produced as many as four witnesses among them PWs.1 and 2 are the private mediators, PWs.3 and 4 are the police personnel including the investigating officer, who was present at that time. Admittedly, PWs.1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case. During cross-examination, PW.1 stated that about two years back they were called by Sub-Inspector of Police, Donkarai Police Station, as per demand of police, he drafted a report in the police station itself and signed thereon. He was declared hostile and several questions were asked but he never supported the prosecution case to the