The main legal point established in the judgment is the inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers, the importance of independent witnesses, and the requirement of proving mens rea in charges under Section 489B and 489C of the I.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order of conviction passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in Sessions Case No. 367 of 2018, Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2nd February, 2019.

2. S.I. Subrata Indra of Berhampore Police Station on 17th November, 2017, set the criminal administration of justice into motion by informing the Inspector-in-charge of Berhampore Police Station in writing about the fact that on 17th November, 2017 he along with other police personnel rounded up three persons who were supposed to come to Ranibagan, Bhutia Market in front of Ranibagan Medical Centre with fake Indian currency notes in their possession and they would exchange the same among themselves. Recording such information in the diary vide Berhampore P.S. G.D. Entry No. 1189 of 17th November, 2017, pursuant to the direction of the Inspector-in-charge of Berhampore Police Station, he alongwith constable Ismail Sk., Village Police Toton Sarkar left the police station for Ranibagan to work out the information by government vehicle no. WB 58T 5096. They arrived at the spot at about 13.45 hours in uniform and waited at Ranibagan More in disguise. At about 14.15 hours two persons were found to have come to Bhutia Market, riding motorcycles registered as WB 58V 1951 and WB 58S 8937 and stopped in front of one person who was waiting at Bhutia Market. The said person gave two bundles of pink colour notes to the motorcycle riders; at that point of time police stepped in and apprehended all the three persons. Police thereafter disclosed their identity and informed them about the reason for which those persons were apprehended. The persons apprehended then disclosed their identity as Sujoy Mondal, Intaj Ali and Obaidul Islam.

3. The informant made an attempt to find out some public witnesses but having found no person willing to be the witness to search, S.I. Subrata Indra offered himself to be searched by the apprehended accused persons one by one. But they refused to do so. Thereafter, Subrata Indra searched the apprehended accused persons one by one in presence of two other police personnel.100 number of fake Indian currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 2000/- found in the right pocket of the pant of the accused person Sujoy Mondal. 99 numbers of fake Indian currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 2000/- were found from the pocket of accused Intaj Ali and 99 numbers of fake Indian currency notes of denomination of Rs. 2000/- found in the pant pocket of accused Obaidul Islam together with two mobile phones. The accused persons failed to give any explanation for possessing the fake Indian currency notes. However, they admitted before the police officer about their knowledge that those were fake currency notes which they wanted to sell to others for using them as genuine in the market. They also admitted their involvement in the business of trafficking of fake Indian currency notes. The currency notes were seized together with other articles including the motorcycles used by those persons.

4. As the information disclosed offence cognizable in nature Berhampore P.S. case No. 1385 of 2017 dated 17th November, 2017 was registered under Section 489B and 489C of the I.P.C. Police took up investigation which culminated into submission of charge sheet against the accused persons. Charge was framed under Section 489B and 489C of the I.P.C. and pleading their innocence to the charges, the accused persons stood trial.

5. To crown success prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses out of which P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are police personnel; rest five witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution case rests on the testimony of police personnel.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ROHTASH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3208 held:

'The term witness means a person who is capable