- (1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 29.04.2010 and 03.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. VIII, South 24-Parganas at Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 5(5) 2008, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 184(4) of 2008, thereby convicting the appellant Ashu Mondal alias Ashu Khamaru for committing offence punishable under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code and further sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) On 09.02.2008, Debobrata Sen, S.I. of Behala Police Station, received a source information that one young man, strong built medium height black complexion, wearing ganji and pant, was loitering at Parnashree Bus Stand area suspiciously and possessing huge number of counterfeit currency notes with an intention to use the same as genuine in the local market. Debobrata Sen, S.I., informed the Officer-in-Charge of Behala Police Station and was instructed to proceed towards the Parnashree Bus Stand to work out the said information. On receiving instruction from the Officer-in-Charge, Behala Police Station, S.I., Debobrata Sen along with other police personnel had been to Parnashree Bus Stand. Before leaving the Police Station he asked the Duty Officer of the said Police Station to make a G.D. Entry. On the way to Parnashree Bus Stand, S.I. Debobrata Sen met two persons, disclosed the facts and action to be taken to them and asked them to be witnesses to the entire process. They voluntarily agreed to the proposal. At about 14.45 hours, S.I. Debobrata Sen and other officials together with those two persons reached near the Parnashree Bus Stand and found a man tried to hide himself behind the standing bus seeing the police party approaching towards him. He was chased and caught. On interrogation, he disclosed his identity and on queries he admitted that he possessed a bunch of counterfeit currency notes, which he wanted to use in the local market as genuine currency notes knowing fully well that those were counterfeit. He was searched thoroughly and 20 numbers of 1000 rupee notes, 3 numbers of 500 rupee notes and 24 numbers of 100 rupee notes were seized from the right side pocket of his trouser. Those were seized under seizure list in presence of witnesses and after seizure, the seized currency notes were kept in an envelope, which was sealed and labelled properly. The appellant was arrested and taken to the Police Station together with the seized articles. A written First Information Report was lodged by the S.I. Debobrata Sen stating the entire episode in the Behala Police Station. On the basis of such First Information Report, Behala Police Station case No. 40 of 2008 dated 09.02.2008 under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code was started. The case was investigated into and ended in a charge sheet against the appellant for prosecuting him under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was arrayed to face the above charges under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and, accordingly, the trial commenced. As many as nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Some documents were admitted into evidences, which were marked Exbts. 1 to 7/1. The seized 20 numbers of 1000 rupee notes, 3 numbers of 500 rupee notes and 24 numbers of 100 rupee notes were also produced in Court, identified by the witnesses and marked material Exbts. I, II and III collectively. No evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the defence. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence recorded by it and the documents as well as material exhibits placed before it, came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of offence under Section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the judgment and order of sentence impugned was passed, which has been assailed by the appellant on the following grounds: (i) that the learned Trial Court failed to apply judicial mind and failed to appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective; (ii) that the learned Trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the source of information allegedly received by the lodger of the First Information Report, i.e., the S.I., Debobrata Sen, was not disclosed either in the First Information Report or in the evidence; (iii) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the recovery to seizure of the counterfeit notes were not supported by independent witnesses, i.e., the P.W. 4 and P.W. 7; (iv) that the learned Trial Court also failed to take into consideration of the fact that material exhibits were not bearing signature of the appellant and the Malkhana Register (Exbt. 2) did not reflect about keeping the seized alamats at Malkhana at any point of time; (v) that the learned Trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the appellant was possessing the counterfeit currency notes with an intention to use the same as genuine and that mere possession of the same was not amounting to an offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code; (vi) that the prosecution case was not proved beyond doubt and the learned Trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant on benefit of doubt; (vii) that the learned Trial Court put long and compound questions at the time of examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was confusing and, as such, the appellant could not explain the situation properly in Court and, thereby, was prejudiced highly; and (viii) that the judgment being otherwise bad in law, is liable to be set aside.
(3.) The lodger of the First Information Report, i.e, S.I., Debobrata Sen, was examined as P.W. 1 in the learned Trial Court. He reiterated the fact stated in the First Information Report. He has stated categorically that he got a source information on the relevant date that a person was roaming at Parnashree Bus Stand with counterfeit currency notes. He passed the information to the Officerin-Charge of the Behala Police Station and on his instructions, he, together with A.S.I., Arshad Ali Khan, Constable Barun Sen, Constable Prabir Mondal, Constable Ranjan Roy, Constable Tarit Baidya and Constable Nirapada Sardar together with Shyamal Naskar and Mintu Mondal had been to the Parnashree Bus Stand and found the appellant tried to hide himself behind a bus seeing police party approaching. He further stated that he caught the man and after searching 20 numbers of 1000 rupee notes, 3 numbers of 500 rupee notes and 24 numbers of 100 rupee notes were recovered from the right side pocket of his trouser and seized the same in presence of witnesses. Apparently, the currency notes were found to be counterfeit. He identified the seizure list, which was prepared by him, ( Exbt.-1). The P.W. 1 stated further that he put the seized currency notes in an envelope and labelled and sealed the said envelope properly. The sealed envelope was produced in Court, which was opened in presence of the Court as well as the appellant. 20 numbers of 1000 rupee notes, 3 numbers of 500 rupee notes and 24 numbers of 100 rupee notes were identified by the P.W. 1 as seized currency notes which were marked Exbts. I, II and III series. The envelope with label bearing signatures of the witnesses as well as the appellant were also produced in Court and was marked Exbt. 2. The P.W. 1 stated in the First Information Report as well as in his statement as a witness in Court that a G.D. Entry was made by A.S.I. Binoy Bhusan Das regarding departure of Police Station by the P.W. 1. That G.D. Entry No. 865 dated 09.02.2008 was admitted into evidence and marked Exbt. 4. The Return G.D. Entry was also produced in Court and marked Exbt. 5. The evidence of the P.W. 1 supported the case made out in the First Information Report fullfledgedly. The P.W. 1 was extensively cross-examined by the defence. It is found that the currency notes, which were seized from the possession of the appellant, were not bearing signatures of the witnesses, the appellant and the P.W. 1. It is found that Exbt. 2 was not bearing the Malkhana Register number. It is also found from his cross-examination that the P.W. 1 did not make any effort to know how and when the subject currency notes were to be used as genuine one by the appellant. Baring these facts, the P.W. 1 stood against the test of cross-examination very confidently. The P.W. 2, Ranjan Kumar Roy, Constable No. 1292, attached to Behala Police Station on 09.02.2008, supported the oral testimony of P.W. 1. He supported the case of recovery of counterfeit currency notes and seizure of the same. He identified his signature on the seizure list, which was marked Exbt. 1/1 and signature on the label which was marked Exbt. 2/1. He identified the appellant also in Court. There is nothing in his cross-examination which may lead to any conclusion that what the P.W. 1 stated was incorrect, rather the deposition of the P.W. 2 is appears to be consistent and credible. It does not appear from the deposition that he or the P.W. 1 had any reason to implicate the appellant falsely in a case of like nature.;