Mere possession and use of forged currency, without evidence of manufacturing or the process of manufacturing, constitute offenses under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code.

In this criminal revisional application the petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the charge-sheet relating to the offence punishable under Sections 489A/489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code relates to G.R. Case No. 533 of 1997, now pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, arising out of Digha Police Station Case No. 20 of 1997.

2. Mr. Amartya Ghosh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for quashing of the case on the following grounds;

(a) It does not appear from the charge-sheet that there was any expert opinion that the seized currency notes in question are counterfeit.

(b) The petitioner is innocent and no materials have been found during investigation that he had any knowledge that those currency notes were counterfeit.

(c) There is no material to show that seized currency notes were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

(d) No materials to satisfy the requirements of basic ingredients of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code that either the petitioner was engaged in manufacturing counterfeit notes or in the process of manufacturing. Lastly, it is submitted that if this Court finds that this is not a fit case of quashing, in that case, there may be a direction for expeditious conclusion of the trial and further the warrant of arrest which has been issued against the petitioner be stayed for some time so as to enable him to appear in the Court and to take necessary legal steps in that regard.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Joy Sengupta, the learned Counsel for the State produced the Case Diary and submitted evidentiary materials collected against the petitioner during the course of investigation, prima facie establishes that the counterfeit notes in question were seized from the possession of the petitioner and it is he who tendered the notes to the shop-keeper for purchasing of cashew nuts. However, Mr. Sengupta, in his usual fairness submitted that there are no materials to show that the petitioner either engaged in manufacturing of the forged notes or in the process of manufacturing it. Lastly, Mr. Sengupta submitted that he has no objection, if there is a direction for expeditious conclusion of the trial and if the warrant of arrest is stayed for some time with a direction to the petitioner to surrender in the Court below.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions of the parties and perused the Case Diary.

5. Having gone through the statement of the witnesses, I found that there is specific allegation that when the petitioner tendered two currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each to a shop-keeper for purchasing cashew nuts, it raised doubts in the mind of the shop-keeper as to the genuineness of the same and he was caught there and then with those two currency notes were handed over to the police and the aforesaid case was started. I further find that the seized currency notes were sent to the expert for his opinion and according to such opinion both the seized notes were fake and counterfeit. According to the witnesses, after the petitioner being apprehended with the forged currency notes, he admitted his guilt, therefore at the present moment on the face of such extrajudicial confession, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no knowledge that those currency notes were forged.

6. In view of above materials on record, it prima facie establishes that those two currency notes were recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and at the time, while he was using the same as genuine for purchasing cashew nuts and the said currency notes were subsequently found to be forged and counterfeit and accordingly, it cannot be said that no case punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the present petitioner.

7. So far as the offences punishable under Section 489A is concerned, I found that there is no evi