The court ruled that possession of counterfeit currency notes does not alone establish guilt; intention to use them as genuine must be proven alongside accountability for their possession.

JUDGMENT :

TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.

1.During the hearing of CRA 123 of 2019, CRA 37 of 2019, CRA 189 of 2017 and CRA 702 of 2018, the following terms of reference arose:

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?

2. In view of the aforesaid terms of reference, the Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to constitute the present Larger Bench for deciding the same.

3. Subsequently CRR 2111 of 2019, CRA 215 of 2016, CRA 657 of 2016,CRA730 of 2016, CRA 15 of 2019, CRA 268 of 2019, CRA 396 of 2019, CRA 608 of 2019, CRA 984 of 2019 and CRR 2308 of 2019 were referred as common questions of law arose in those appeals/revisions and as such they were heard along with the present reference.

Submissions from the Bar:

CRA No. 37 of 2019

4. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant (Mahoram Mondal @ Antu) was convicted under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (five) years and 3 (three) years respectively with fine and default clause qua the offences under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant’s case in appeal was based on the following facts:-

The Police Officer being P.W.1, lodged an FIR, but in course of evidence he could not recollect the name of other independent witnesses;

Two witnesses in respect of search and seizure being P.W.4 and P.W. 6 could not recollect the name of the accused;

P.W.4 and P.W.5 also could not identify the appellant in Court.;

P.W.10 the expert, who examined the FICN, produced his report i.e.

Ext.27, however his deposition is silent as to what was examined by him, what was the nature and method of examination. As such the process followed by him was cryptic, sketchy and as such unreliable;

The ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code according to the appellant could not be proved.

5. In support of his contention learned Advocate relied upon Jiban Sasmal - versus- State of West Bengal reported in 1987 SCC Online Cal 114, Sarvesh Pathak @ Kallu -versus- State of West Bengal reported in 2014 SCC Online Cal 18497, Chhotelal Thakur -versus- Union of India reported in 2020 SCC Online Cal 2149, Hoda Sk. -versus- State of West Bengal reported in 2020 SCC Online Cal 1478, Umashanker -versus- State of Chattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 642 , M. Mammutti -versus- State of Karnataka reported in (1979) 4 SCC 723 , Md. Morful Haque -versus- State of We