High Court Convicts Man for Counterfeit Currency Possession

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi has overturned a 2017 acquittal, underscoring the legal weight of evidence regarding the possession of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN). Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) , held that while the prosecution failed to prove trafficking, the evidence was sufficient to convict the respondent, Kulwant Rai, under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).

The Airport Interception

The case traces back to the intervening night of September 11-12, 2012, at the Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport in Delhi. Kulwant Rai, arriving on a flight from Bangkok, was intercepted by Customs (Preventive) officers . Officials observed suspicious physical markers—an abnormal bulge in his leg area—which prompted a personal search. Upon inspection, they discovered counterfeit currency notes worth approximately ₹6,01,500 concealed within his socks.

The recovery initiated a legal battle that stretched for over a decade. While the trial court initially granted an acquittal based on technical discrepancies and minor counting errors in the seized packets, the High Court took a more pragmatic view, emphasizing the reliability of the recovery evidence itself.

Arguments and Judicial Scrutiny

The CBI challenged the acquittal, arguing that the trial court ignored consistent testimonies from Customs officials and independent panch witnesses. The central contention was that the recovered currency had been verified and confirmed as counterfeit by the Bank Note Press in Dewas . The discrepancy—specifically, a shortfall of a single note in both ₹500 and ₹1000 denominations—was dismissed by the High Court as a consequence of "human error" that did not undermine the totality of the recovery.

The respondent maintained his defense, arguing that the process was faulty and the evidence unreliable. However, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna found that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act—wherein the respondent admitted his involvement and detailed the source of the funds (a person named Kuldeep Singh Dua)—remained a powerful, un-retracted piece of evidence.

Key Observations

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the weight of circumstantial and direct corroborative evidence:

• "The Statement of the Respondent under Section 108 Customs Act made by the Respondent corroborates that there was a recovery of FICNs from his possession."
• "The explanation given for discrepancy in the serial numbers...cannot be ignored. This is also evident from the fact that in the serial number from 83 to 100 of the Notes of Rs.1000/- denomination, there is only a discrepancy of mentioning the serial number."
• "It has established beyond reasonable doubt that the seized notes were sent in the sealed packet and there was no tampering in the transit."
• "The legal proof is thus, not necessarily a perfect proof; often it is nothing more than a prudent man’s estimate as to the probabilities of the case."

The Verdict and Its Impact

While the High Court acknowledged that evidentiary thresholds must be met, it clarified that "the Prosecution is not required to prove the impossible." By setting aside the acquittal, the court underscored that trivial procedural errors should not defeat the ends of justice when the underlying criminal act—the conscious possession of prohibited counterfeit currency—is clearly established.

The Court held that while the charge of trafficking ( Section 489-B IPC ) remained unproven due to a lack of evidence regarding commercial sale or transfer, the respondent was unequivocally guilty of possession ( Section 489-C IPC ). The matter has now been scheduled for arguments on sentencing in early 2026, marking a stern warning against the illicit transportation of counterfeit notes.