2024 Supreme(Pat) 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 404 of 2022 with 729 and 802 of 2021
(4.1.2024)
Ripun Sheikh (in 404)
Paras Nath Chaubey (in 729)
Prabhat Kumar @ Prabhat Agarwal (in 802) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondents
(in all)

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860–Sections 489-B, 489-C read with Section 34 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967–Sections 16(1)(b) and Section 17–Appellants found dealing with counterfeit currency notes at Mithapur Bus Stand inside the S.B.I. Campus–the act of the prosecution to withhold the seizure list witnesses, who could have deposed at the trial, without any justification is fatal to the prosecution case–the entire case of the prosecution of recovery of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of these appellants cannot be said to be beyond any shadow of doubt in the wake of the circumstances that the prosecution withheld two important seizure list witnesses in whose presence, according to the F.I.R., the searches were carried out and upon recovery from the appellants, the counterfeit currency notes were seized–in such circumstances, it is highly unsafe to uphold the finding of the trial court that prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the appellants–when possession of an incriminating material itself constitutes an offence, the duty to prove such possession is heavy on prosecution–it is peculiar to note in the present case that the prosecution claimed to have seized from the possession of these appellants counterfeit currency notes in the presence of the seizure list witnesses, but opted not to get them examined at the trial by not citing them as charge-sheet witnesses–as the prosecution failed to establish offence punishable u/s 489-C IPC by not proving recovery of the counterfeit currency notes, the offence punishable u/s 489-C IPC cannot be said to have been proved–the fact the currency notes were with the appellant Ripun Sheikh, which he was giving to the other appellants, is based on his own confession to ATS personnel–the prosecution has relied on the confessional statement of these appellants, when they were in custody–such confessional statement has no evidentiary value–conviction u/ss. 489-B and 489-C cannot be sustained–for the same reason that the prosecution failed to prove recovery of the counterfeit currency notes from the possession of these appellants, the appellants' conviction u/s 16(1)(b) of the UAP Act cannot be sustained–further, bundles of currency notes, said to have been seized from the possession of the appellants, were sent to the FSL 17 days after the seizure–thus, apparently, the I.O. did not follow the mandate of the Rules 6(2) of the rules framed u/s 52 of the UAP Act which required to send the seized currency to the notified forensic authority within 48 hours–provisions under Rule 6 of the Rules are mandatory in nature and are required to be strictly adhered to for a prosecution in relation to any offence punishable u/s. 16(1)(b) of the UAP Act read with Section 15 thereof and consequently the appellant stand acquitted of the charges u/ss. 489-B and 489-C of the IPC and Section 16(1)(b) of the UAP Act by giving them benefit of doubt–impugned judgment of conviction sentence set aside–appeals allowed. (Paras 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30 to 34)

Jitendra Singh vs. State of Bihar [Cr. App. (DB) No. 18/2017 D/- 08.08.2022]–Referred.