Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) Doubting the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.1.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court Malda in Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2014, the appellant has preferred this appeal contending inter alia that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and the documents filed by the prosecution in its proper perspectives. It is also said that on the basis of sketchy evidence, the learned Trial Court has convicted him. The learned Trial Court also failed to appreciate the search and seizure, which is the essence of such an offence. Ventilating his such grievances, the appellant prayed for acquittal.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the learned Trial Court has considered all the material aspects in its proper perspectives and has come to a correct conclusion which does not require any interference.
(3.) In the interest of effective adjudication factual matrix of the case is to be re-looked. Prosecution case in a capsulated form is as such that on 03.09.2013 when the B.S.F. personnel were on ambush duty in the VillageMahabutpur, P.S.-Kaliachak, they found that some persons had thrown a packet from Bangladesh Border to Indian Border and 4 to 5 persons rushed to that spot for collecting the said bag. However, the ambush party could detain only one of them and from his possession a polythene bag was recovered. On opening the same the members of the raiding party found that there were about Fake Indian Currency Notes of 10 lakhs. Accordingly, B.S.F. personnel seized the property and lodged the F.I.R. and sent the accused to the custody of the P.S. In this way, law was set into motion.;