IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the seizure of high-quality counterfeit currency justifies prosecution under the UAPA, and procedural irregularities in sanction do not invalidate the case.

JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malda, thereby rejecting the prayer for discharge advanced on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Sessions Case No. 09 of 2023 arising out of Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 636 of 2016 dated 22.09.2016 under Sections 489B/489C of the IPC and Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the charge-sheet were to the effect that the petitioner while in police custody in connection with Kaliachak P.S. Case No. 05 of 2016 dated 3.01.2016 disclosed regarding the availability of FICN at his native place at Mojampur. Leading to such statement of the accused/petitioner, FICN of Rs.500/- denomination aggregating to 290 pieces were recovered from the wooden cupboard of the bedroom of the accused/petitioner in presence of the witnesses.

3. The case was thereafter endorsed to the present investigating officer, who examined the witnesses. The investigation was also conducted by two other investigating officers, who concluded the investigation after examining several witnesses and obtaining expert’s opinion. Finally, charge-sheet/report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted under Sections 489B/489C of the IPC and Sections 15/16 of the UAPA Act, 1967 (as amended in the year 2008) against the accused/petitioner. A prayer was also advanced for according sanction.

4. Mr. S. S. Roy, learned advocate for the petitioner, has contended that in view of the reference pending before the Larger Bench and the issues involved therein, the present revisional application may be referred to the Larger Bench. To that effect learned advocate drew the attention of the court to the point of references in CRA 123/2019 (along with other appeals), which are set out as follows:

“1) Whether the aid of ‘presumption’ is available when the seizure of FICN is effected from the possession of an individual?

(2) If quantity/volume of FICN is a ground of ‘presumption’, what would be the cut off number for presuming that the ‘possession’ was for the purpose of ‘otherwise traffics in’?

(3) When substantial number of FICN are recovered from the possession of a security personnel associated with the Government i.e. Police, CISF, Defence Forces etc. can it be presumed that the ingredients of the term ‘otherwise traffics in’ used in Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code is automatically attracted?

(4) Do seizure from the possession of an individual of High Quality Counterfeit Notes (as referred to in the provisions of UAPA, 1967), opined by an Expert automatically attract the provisions of Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code?”

5. Learned Advocate submits that the issues relating to reference being Nos. 1, 2 and 4 covers his case, so the revisional application may be referred to the Larger Bench.

6. Mr. Nandy, learned Advocate for the State, has emphasized that the investigating agency forwarded the seized 290 notes to the Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Limited, wherein the expert in its opinion dated 07.10.2016 remarked the counterfeit currencies as ‘High Quality Counterfeit Notes’ as per Third Schedule of UAPA Act, 1967. This Court, thereafter, sought for a clarification relating to the issues which led the expert to opine as ‘High Quality Counterfeit Notes’. Based on the aforesaid, a report was submitted before this court after referring to the Notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 18th March, 2014. The said Notification, which is relevant for the purposes of the present revisional application, is set out as follows:

“MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2014

G.S.R. 231(E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 the Central Government hereby makes the followin