1. Ambit and purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act has once again arisen for consideration in this case. To that, I may refer little later, first facts of the case. The case of prosecution is use of forged / counterfeit currency note as a genuine note by the appellant and the other accused. The story, as presented by the prosecution, sounds improbable and material on record rules out even remote possibility of conviction. However, the story does find acceptance at the hands of the trial court and material on record failed to shake judicial conscience of the court of first instance. Story unfolded in a moment would show why it is improbable and reference to evidence would show how and why the case is unacceptable.

2. It said to have happened on 26.12.1983. Two ladies (A1 and A2) said to have come to the complainant’s shop / larry. The complainant at the relevant time was doing business of ready-made garments and other ancillary items. A1 had said to have selected one towel which was priced at Rs.8/-. A1 gave Rs.100/-note (Article 1). The said currency note appeared as suspicious to the complainant as its number on left hand side and right hand side does not tally. This mismatch of number had led the complainant to rush to inform about this to his partner – at his partner’s residence. The partner is said to be residing nearby. The partner, in turn, rushed to inform to the police. In the meanwhile, the complainant had made A1 and A2 to wait on the pretext that he has no required exchange of Rs.100/- currency and he has asked his partner to collect exchange of Rs.100/-. Then, police had said to have arrived and it is the say of the prosecution that police had recorded the panchnama and complaint.

3. In the judgment under challenge, two accused (A1 and A3) came to be convicted by the trial court and other accused were acquitted. While A3 was convicted for offence under Section 489 (A), (B), (C) and (D), A1 was convicted only for offence under Section 489(C). Pending the appeal, A3 had died. Hence, her appeal abated. In the present appeal, we are concerned only with the case against A1.

4. The case of prosecution rests on evidence of 13 witnesses and on different panchnamas and of course, on RBI report.

5. How these currency notes are fake or forged? In order to consider the case of prosecution as to counterfeit and forged notes, further reference to facts may be made. Upon lodging of the complaint and taking A1 and A2 to the police station and making their interrogation, police had carried out search at the residence of A3. There, the police had said to have found quite few pieces of currency notes of different denomination (of total more than Rs.2600/-) (Exh.44) plus gum, fevi stick, thiner etc. at the residence of A3. All pieces of currency notes were of genuine notes. Further investigation had led the police to one shop – Shop No.20 – at the Capital Commerce Center. At the said shop, the hoarding was placed, it reads thus; ‘Hospital of Torn / Damaged Notes.’ The shop owner found to be the agent of RBI. Police had found torn, burnt and damaged notes of different denominations worth Rs.7500/- at the shop. It is the say of the prosecution that shop owner etc. are prosecuted by separate sessions case.

6. Further to complete the story, A1 and A2, prior to coming to the larry of the complainant, had on the same day purchased 500 grams bhajiya from Raipur Bhajiya House. They had said to have purchased 500 grams bhajiya by giving currency note of Rs.100/- denomination (Article 50). The police also found in the investigation that A1 and A2 had about 1 and 1/2 months prior to the date of lodging the complaint, visited one Sun Bakery and said to have purchased 250 grams khari-biscuits, by giving currency note of Rs.100/- denomination (Article 49). Then, A1 and A2 had also said to have visited Jamalbhai’s shop and said to have purchased two pillow covers. These accused have said to have given currency note of Rs.100/- denomination