G.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) This criminal appeal arises out of an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands at Port Blair granting benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The prosecution story is as follows: 1.1. On 26.11.1997 Sub-Inspector Abdul Salam received a secret information that in the evening of 25.11.1997 C. Ronald participated in a gambling in the house of one Manicaam at Bathu Basti. Some hundred rupee notes, sought to be used by him at the gambling were not accepted by the co-gamblers on the ground that they were fake, whereafter Ronald left the place. Upon receipt of the information the S.I. Salam left the Police Station in search of C. Ronald who was caught at about 13.05 hours. Upon his body being searched four fake currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination bearing the same serial numbers namely IPQ-204124 were recovered from his chest pocket in the presence of two witnesses namely Thangaraj and Ramzan Ali. The notes were taken into custody, a panchnama was prepared and Ronald was arrested. The accused, the S.I. and the witnesses signed the panchnama. An FIR was thereafter lodged by the S.I., Salam. Inspector R.B. Yadav of the CID Department at Port Blair was entrusted with the investigation of the case at 14.15 hours by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The FIR was made available to him. During interrogation Ronald disclosed the name of M.P. Arun. At about 14.30 hours, constable Rajesh was deputed by Inspector Yadav for the purpose of bringing Arun. Arun came along at about 14.55 hours. Arun disclosed the name of Anil Kumar. Again constable Rajesh was deputed for the purpose of bringing Anil Kumar and he was brought in the Police Station at about 15.30 hours. 1.2. At about 16,00 hours Arun made a statement to the police which was recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act disclosing that he borrowed from Anil Kumar a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on 25.11.1997 which were all in Rs. 100/- denomination. In the evening around 8/8.30 P.M. on 25.11.1997 he lent a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from out of Rs. 12,000/- to Ronald. On 26.11.1997 Ronald informed Arun in the morning that the notes which he gave were not accepted by the gamblers on the ground that they were fake. Ronald returned to Arun 4 notes which the gamblers had refused to accept. During lunch break when Arun came back to his house from the office, he learnt that Ronald had been arrested for keeping fake currency whereupon Arun moved with the total sum of Rs. 7,400/- which was given to him by Anil to his latrine. He tore notes into small pieces threw it in the pan and flushed the same with buckets of water. He further said that by opening the septic tank the torn pieces could be recovered. 1.3. At about 16.10 hours Anil made a statement to the police which was also recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Anil in his statement disclosed that in repayment of a loan, one Kuttan of Santosh Jewellery gave him Rs. 49,000/- by currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination about 7 or 8 days prior to 25.11.1997. On 25.11.1997 he lent a sum of Rs. 12,000/- to Arun from out of the aforesaid sum and the balance sum of Rs. 37,000/- was lying with him in his Steel Almirah inside his bedroom which he could hand over to the police if he were taken to that place. 1.4. Ronald had already made a statement which was recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act at about 14.30 hours stating that around 8/8.30 in the night on 25.11.1997 he borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from Arun which were all in Rs. 100 denomination. He went to the place where gambling was regular held. He threw 4 notes on the table which the gamblers refused to accept on the ground that they were fake. He accordingly took back the 4 notes and replaced the same with genuine currency amounting to Rs. 400/- and came back to his house. 42 notes of Rs. 100 denominations, given to him by Arun, which he had wrapped in a red handkerchief and kept the same concealed inside a shoe, which was lying on a rack along with other shoes and chappals at his house, which he could show if he were taken to that place. 1.5. Pursuant to the aforesaid statements made by the accused persons 42 notes were recovered from the house of Ronald, wrapped in a red handkerchief from inside a shoe which were seized by Inspector Yadav at 14.45 hours in the presence of the same witnesses namely Thangaraj and Ramzan Ali. Each of the 42 notes bore the same serial numbers namely 9NP 892890. 1.6. At 16.35 hours 370 notes were seized from the second shelf of the Steel Almirah lying in the bedroom of Anil. A seizure list was prepared disclosing the serial numbers which the notes contained, which was signed by the accused, the Inspector and the said two witnesses. 1.7. At about 17,00 hours on 27.11.1997 with the help of three sweeper the septic tank of Arun's ancestral house was opened. From the first hole of the septic tank torn pieces of 51 currency notes were recovered. A seizure list/panchnama was prepared which was signed by the accused, the Inspector and the said sweepers. Some photographs of the torn pieces of notes are also stated to have been exposed. 1.8. Some more recoveries of fake currency notes were also made, which will be discussed in detail at a later stage, with which the accused persons are not concerned. The currency notes recovered from the accused persons separately packed according to their serial numbers were sent by the S.P. to the Central Forensic Science Institute, Calcutta for examination under the cover of a letter dated 20.2.1998. The Central Forensic Science Institute opined that each one of the 437 currency notes sent to them for examination was fake. The torn pieces of the notes were however not examined by them. 1.9. Each one of the accused persons was charged under sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code Arun was in addition charged under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the evidence of the offence to disappear. It may be convenient to set out the provisions of sections 489B and 489C which are as follows: "489B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank-notes.-Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." "489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes.-Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." 1.1O. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. Accordingly they were tried jointly.
(2.) The learned Sessions Judge recorded a definite finding that the currency notes were counterfeit but at the same time held that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case and he acquitted the accused persons giving them benefit of doubt. He entertained a doubt as to whether the notes, which were before him were the ones which had been seized from the possession of Ronald and Anil. The fact that the witnesses particularly the seizure witnesses turned hostile was also a disquieting factor. He thought that the investigating agency did not take its task seriously. The reasons which weighed with him in his own words are as follows: (a) ".........prosecution has given no mark of identification on each or every currency notes alleged to be fake ones at the time of ownership......" (b) ".........to be on the safer side, the recovering police officer should have obtained signatures of the witnesses as well as of the accused persons at least, so that the recovered article can be linked with their subsequent identification of their signatures by the respective parties." (c) "From the manner in which the witnesses viz. Thanga Raj and Ramzan Ali deposed, it is found that they have all through denied about their knowledge of any search or recovery of any currency notes, but they could not deny their signatures on the papers in relation to the said search and recovery and thereby it could at least be presumed that prior to their appearance before this Court as witnesses. Thanga Raj and Ramjan Ali had access to the said currency notes with their respective signatures thereon." (d) ".......PW1 has stated that he put his signatures on some papers at the spot in front of the Guest House No. 2 he subsequently stated in course of cross examination by the prosecution that he put his signature on some blank papers at the police station and the said paper did not bear any signature before the signature of this witness was obtained thereon. After a long pause with negative answers to the suggestions given by the learned Public Prosecutor, this witness practically became of no help to the prosecution, which in its turn also did not take the advantage of placing the currency notes before this witness for identification of the same though all the bundles containing currency notes were brought out from the big brown paper packet containing seal of the CFSL, Calcutta in open Court. So in the entire oral evidence of PW1 Thanga Raj the alleged witness to the seizure on 3 counts, nothing is available to show that he was ever any witness to the search, recovery and seizure of fake currency notes from the possession of accused Ronald or accused R. Anil Kumar." (e) "........The most unfortunate matter in this case remains to be noted that most of the alleged fake currency notes numbering 418 to 436 identified in this case, were alleged to have been recovered in presence of PW1 Thanga Raj and PW14 Ramzan Ali and also in presence of accused Ronald and accused R. Anil Kumar. But none of these currency notes bear any endorsement in the style of signature of these 2 witnesses or either of them, or of the accused persons from whose possession or on whose production those currency notes were recovered and it cannot be ascertained that these were the currency notes which were actually recovered from those accused persons' possession. (f) "We have compared the evidence of PW2 and PW15 with those of PW1 and PW14 and it is found the prosecution allegation of possession of currency notes on the part of the accused persons having knowledge of the same as fake currency notes and to use them was not property proved since the seizure witnesses almost turned their face from the prosecution story and completely denied about their presence or knowledge in respect of search recovery and seizure of the currency notes on different occasions as stated by PW2 and PW15." (g) "........in the present case the matter has been handled so carelessly that linking of the currency notes which are Mat. Exts. I to VII in the present case, to the materials which were recovered from the alleged places and possession of the accused could not be possible since the identity of those article being alleged to be fake currency notes and the present Mat. Exts. I to VII cannot be merged together as the same article, since the PW2 and PW15 have admitted that they have not made arrangement for getting the endorsement of identity with those recovered articles so that it can be identified here as being the same currency notes. Further it is found from the type of handling of the case by PW15 when he called three illiterate sweepers from PBMC not only to clean and bring out the torn pieces of currency notes from the septic tank of accused M.P. Arun, but he did such an inefficient approach to select these illiterate sweepers as witnesses to the alleged disclosure statement by M.P. Arun before going to the said septic tank in his house and also in getting the signatures of these sweepers in the seizure list as seizure witnesses." (h) "The P.W15 never took the entire matter seriously to handle the case with full care since the materials of offence in this case, as alleged, were nothing but some deceiving article to the general public and it is also some material which would hit at the root of economic stability of the country. I fail to understand why these two police officers PWs2 and 15 did not handle the matter carefully by making arrangement in such a way so that the Mat. Ext. I to Mat. Ext. VII could be linked with the materials so recovered from the accused Ronald and also from accused R. Anil Kumar at least." (i) "I also cannot spare the witnesses Mr. Thangaraj and Mr. Ramjan Ali as they went on denying all the prosecution suggestions though, out of them Thangaraj at least recognised his signatures and the respective papers produced by the prosecution and the fact that he made the signatures on the spot in front of the Guest House No. 2 at Haddo. I do not know whether these witnesses gave any false evidence before the Court or not, but at least it is presumed that though they identified their respective signatures on different papers which were subsequently proved as some seizure lists and also some papers wrappers, they have avoided to disclose their knowledge about the said signatures properly and if they did it, then the story would have been otherwise and the society as a whole could have been saved from gradual deterioration in respect of influx of circulation of fake currency notes as it is so reported nowadays."
(3.) Mr. Ray learned senior advocate appearing for the State- appellant made the following submissions: (a) Evidence of PW11 Forensic Expert was that the currency notes were fake. (b) The learned Sessions Judge after coming to a finding that "this Court has got no hesitation to hold that those questioned documents or currency notes No. Q 1 to Q436 were not genuine," indulged in a fanciful thinking that the currency notes produced before the Court and found by him to be spurious might not be the ones which were recovered from the accused persons because signature of the accused persons was not taken on the currency notes themselves. But he did not take notice of the fact that the signature of the accused persons and the seizure witnesses were taken on the wrappers in which the currency notes seized by the police were kept and the same were duly proved in accordance with law. This doubt was all the more fanciful because there was no suggestion by any one that the notes produced before the Court were not the ones which seized from the accused persons. (c) The learned Sessions Judge did not give any weight to the statements recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recovery and discovery of fact made pursuant thereto. (d) The learned Sessions Judge failed to separate the grain from the chaff. (e) The statement made on oath by Ramzan Ali under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure was not taken into consideration at all. (f) There was enough evidence on the record to show that the prosecution had satisfactorily proved its case.;