The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the seized articles were fake currency notes, and the impact of non-production of a forensic report on the case.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20th March, 2018 and 21st March, 2018 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Malda in Sessions Case No.62 of 2017 (Sessions Trial No.34 of 2017) thereby convicting the appellant for committing offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. English Bazar P.S. Case No.887 of 2016 was registered under Section 489(B)/489C/120B of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a suo motu complaint to the effect that on 20th October, 2016 at about 14.25 hrs. police attached to the said P.S. conducted a raid to verify a source information at Milky Bus Stand and apprehended a lady with a bag in her hand. On search 100 pieces of Rs.500/- denomination and 50 pieces of Rs.1,000/- denomination were found from the possession of the appellant. A.S.I. Ansarul Hoque seized the said fake currency notes, levelled the same and arrested the accused. Then he lodged a complaint against the appellant on the basis of which the above mentioned police case was started. P.W.8 took up the case for investigation and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 489B/489C /120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case was committed to trial to the Court of Sessions and the trial was taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court at Malda. On conclusion of trial the learned trial Judge held the accused/appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced her accordingly.

4. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in the instant appeal.

5. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that in order to bring home the charge against the accused/appellant prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Amongst them two witnesses are independent witnesses and rest witnesses are police personnel. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that there are glaring contradictions between the evidence of the witnesses and the oral testimony of none of the witnesses can be believed. In order to substantiate his contention he first refers to the evidence of P.W.1 Sk. Muktar who is a constable of police and on the relevant point of time was attached to Milky Outpost under English Bazar P.S. From his evidence it is found that a raid-in-party was present at the P.O. for about ten minutes, within which period entire search and seizure was completed. On the contrary, P.W. 3 Bablu Mandal who was a Home Guard and a member of the raid-in-party stated that it took about one and half hours to complete search and seizure.

6. P.W. 2, A.S.I. Ansarul Hoque led the raid on 20th October, 2016. In his cross-examination he stated that he received the information over telephone but he could not state the telephone number over which he received the source information. He also did not mention the telephone number in the F.I.R. The names of persons who accompanied P.W.2 in the raid were not also mentioned in the F.I.R. Thus, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that presence of the witnesses who claimed themselves to be the members of the raid-in-party is doubtful and the learned trial Court failed to consider the aspect in his judgment.

7. It is further pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellant that according to the prosecution case 50 pieces of fake currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination and 100 pieces of fake currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were allegedly recovered from the appellant but P.W. 2 got the signature of P.W.5 who is an independent witness. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether