2026 Supreme(Cal) 206

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
Bhotto Sk. @ Bhottu Sk. @ Guddu – Appellant 
Versus 
The State of West Bengal – Respondent 
C.R.A. 698 of 2014, CRA 699 of 2014
Decided On : 05-05-2026  

Conviction under statutes prohibiting possession of counterfeit currency requires the prosecution to prove not only physical recovery but also the 'conscious possession' of the accused and their 'mens rea' or intent to circulate/use the notes as genuine, backed by a credible and error-free chain of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 489B, 489C, and 120B - Possession of counterfeit currency - Mens Rea - Requirement of proof - Prosecution failed to establish conscious possession or intention to circulate or use forged notes as genuine - Mere physical possession of counterfeit currency insufficient for conviction - Absence of independent witnesses in a vicinity where such witnesses were available weakens the prosecution case - Procedural irregularities such as lack of official seals on seizure list, failure to maintain and produce movement registers, and discrepancies in record-keeping create reasonable doubt regarding recovered material custody. (Paras 22, 23, 27, 32, 33)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Evidence - Standard of proof - Where two views are reasonably possible, the view favorable to the accused must prevail - Prosecution must establish ingredients of offense including mental element - Conviction cannot be based on conjecture or assumption of criminal conspiracy without material demonstrating prior meeting of minds or agreement. (Paras 29, 32, 37)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted by the trial court for possession and trafficking of counterfeit currency notes. The prosecution claimed that a raiding team apprehended the individuals in a public area on the basis of secret information, recovering a significant quantity of forged currency. The appellants challenged the judgment, citing severe procedural flaws in the search and seizure, lack of independent witnesses despite the location being a busy public thoroughfare, and failure to prove that the accused held the notes with the requisite knowledge or intent to circulate them.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of conscious possession or an attempt to use the currency as genuine. Procedural lapses, including the lack of departmental or gazetted officer seals on the seizure list, missing log books of the raiding vehicle, and discrepancies in official diary entries, significantly undermined the chain of custody and the reliability of the recovery. Furthermore, the expert report, while confirming the notes were counterfeit, did not bridge the gap regarding the mens rea of the accused. The charge of criminal conspiracy was also found unsubstantiated as it rested only on the physical proximity of the accused.

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence sufficiently established conscious possession and the requisite intention to circulate counterfeit currency, and whether the procedural deficiencies in the search and seizure operation were fatal to the prosecution's case.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction under the relevant penal provisions for counterfeit currency mandates proof of conscious possession coupled with the intent to use or circulate the notes. When the prosecution evidence is restricted to official personnel and marred by significant procedural failures—such as the absence of independent witnesses in a public place, lack of proper documentation, and failure to prove the suspect's intent—the case fails to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.