The prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in possession of low quality counterfeit notes and that he had tried to use one of such low quality counterfeit notes to purchase an article in the market knowing it to be counterfeit.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. The appellant has assailed the judgement of conviction dated August 2, 2021 and the order of sentence dated August 4, 2021 passed by the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Calcutta in Sessions Trial No. 03 (11) of 2018 arising out of Sessions Case No. 47 of 2018.

2. By the impugned judgement of conviction dated August 2, 2021, the appellant has been convicted under Section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence committed by him under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence committed by the appellant under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

3. The case of the prosecution at the trial has been that, the appellant on June 26, 2018 at about 21:05 hours was at a shop “Ashrafi Service Centre” at 29B, Chandi Chawk Street, Kolkata and purchased goods and paid Rs. 2,000 in fake currency notes generally knowing or having reasons to believe that the same was forged or counterfeit. On the same date, place and time, the appellant had in his possession forged currency notes of Rs. 5 lakh in the denomination of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 500 and intended to use the same as genuine.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the appellant was falsely implicated. The appellant had been picked up from Malda one day prior to the alleged date of occurrence by police personnel. The appellant had spoken about the same in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Defence Witness (DW) 1 had stated that on June 25, 2018. DW 1 had seen a lorry to be standing on the main road of Khasimari and the driver of such lorry to be picked up by persons arriving on a Bolero car. DW 2 being the father of the appellant, had lodged a missing diary on June 26, 2018 at English Bazar police station with regard to the appellant being missing. DW 2 had come to know that the lorry driven by the appellant had checked at Madipur Check Post by some public servant. DW 2 had tried to contact Border Security Force (BSF) personnel. DW 2 had ultimately been informed that the lorry was parked at Khasimari where he found the lorry lying in a deserted condition. DW 2 had finally got information of the arrest of the appellant, his son, in Kolkata.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the defence case of false implication was supported by the fact that there was no investigation with respect to the truck from which the appellant was alleged to have brought the fake currency notes. Moreover, PW 1 was cross-examined at length on various aspects of the defence case of false implication.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the 2nd investigating officer wrote a letter to his superior officer about the requirement of the truck lying at Malda to be searched. He has referred to Exhibit 10 in this regard. He has submitted that investigation was not done in that regard.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the claim of the prosecution that the seizure took place at Kolkata on June 26, 2018 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, there are several discrepancies in the case of the prosecution which makes the alleged seizure and the allegation of attempt of using of fake currency, doubtful. In this regard, he has referred to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He has contended that, none of the members of the raiding team had been examined in Court other than two police personnel. None of the raiding team members had been named in the written complaint.

8. Learned advocate appearing for