The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in evidence, questionable seizure, and non-production of essential documents can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.01.2009 and 16.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in connection with the Sessions Serial Number 249 of 2007 wherein the learned trial Court after holding the present appellants guilty of offence punishable under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was pleased to impose the following sentence :

(i) Rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) each i.d. to undergo R.I. for six months for offences under Sections 489B/34 of the Indian Penal Code;

(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) each i.d. to undergo R.I. for six months for offences under Sections 489C/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Berhampore Police Station Case no. 292/2003 dated 21.09.2003 was registered for investigation under Section 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code pursuant to an information addressed to the Inspector-in-charge, Berhampore Police Station by one Mantu Mondal. The allegations made in the letter of complaint which was treated to be the First Information Report of the case were that two persons namely, Nurjaman Sk. And Masarul Sk came to purchase a male calf from the complainant and after negotiation the price of the calf was fixed at Rs.3,500/-. Masarul Sk. paid the aforesaid sum by way of five currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination, nine currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination, two currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination, one currency note of Rs.20/- denomination and two currency notes of Rs.10/- denomination and another amount of Rs.10/- was handed over for the purposes of tea. On receiving the notes the complainant counted them in presence of the aforesaid two persons and detected that five currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were fake, consequently the complainant called the villagers namely, Dhananjoy Mondal, Binay Monda, Sahadev Mondal and his wife Khyamarani Mondal who rushed and found that the notes were fake. On being asked and pressurized Masarul Sk. admitted the five currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination to be fake and as such the other person Nurjaman Sk was questioned and as a result he also took out seven currency notes of Rs.500/- each from his possession which were also found to be fake. It has been alleged that Masarul Sk. and Nurjaman Sk. in presence of all the persons stated that they had collected the notes from a cowboy at Kurmitala, Lalbagh as his Lord, Sadek was well-known to them and usually visited the market at Beldanga on every Wednesday and Friday for the purposes of purchase and sale of cows, the complainant therefore requested the Officer to arrest and punish the offender according to Law.

3. The Investigating Agency after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and another. However, the other accused namely, Sadek could not be traced by the Investigating Agency and as such the case against him was filed. The report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure reflects that the Investigating Agency has relied upon the seized currency notes as also the report of the opinion of Expert along with 11 witnesses, who lend their support to the prosecution case.

4. On submission of charge-sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of the offence and thereafter committed the case to the Learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad. The Learned Sessions Judge was pleased to transmit the records to the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad for trial and disposal. The learned Trial Court after being satisfied regarding the supply of documents under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code was pleased to frame charges under Sections 120B IPC, 489B/34 IPC