1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 78 of 2010 State Of Chhattisgarh, thorugh : the Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 – Mohanram, S/o Ramcharan Nai, aged about 31 years, Occupation – Agriculture, R/o Bodhma, Police Station – Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2 – Sanjeet Tirkey, S/o Fedrik Tirkey, aged about 31 years, occupation – Agriculture, R/o Ranpur, Police Station and District Jashpur, (C.G.) 3 – Ibrahim Ansari, S/o Aashik Ansari, Aged about 31 years, Occupation – Unemployed, R/o Bagbudi, Police Station – Kunkuri, District Jashpur, (C.G.) 4 – Rajesh Sahu, S/o Baldeo Sahu, aged about 42 years, Occupation – Agriculture, R/o Hatiya Station Road Gitilpuri, Police Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 5 – Mujahid, S/o Ajimuddin, Aged abiout 34 years, Occupation – Agriculture, R/o Puriyokesa, Police Station Bedo, District Ranchi, (Jharkhand) ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri Anand Kujur, Advocate. For Respondents 3 to 5 : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 27/01/2026 1. This Acquittal Appeal filed by the appellant / State under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 12.09.2003 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Jashpur in Sessions Trial No. 30/2003, whereby the learned trial trial Court acquitted the respondents Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.01.29 10:11:46 +0530 2 herein of the charge under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the IPC by giving benefit of doubt. 2. As per prosecution story, on 23.09.2002, co-accused Manoj Minj came to the house of the complainant Prafulla and purchased a Cock after paying him Rs.100/-. Thereafter, the complainant went to the shop of Bazardand and bought the goods from there and gave the same note of Rs.100/- to the shopkeeper, who said it to be a fake note. Thereafter, upon information by the complainant Prafulla, F.I.R. was registered vide Ex.P.22, which was written by P.C. Rai, Incharge of the Police Station During investigation, Manoj Minj was enquired and in the course of enquiry, it emerged that he along with the other accused persons/respondents herein, namely, Mohanram, Sanjeet Tirkey, Ibrahim Ansari, Rajesh Sahu and Mujahid brought the counterfeit currency notes from Ranchi, Jharkhand and sold the fake notes amongst the public of Jharkhand to get the real notes. Investigation was done by P.C. Rai and one fake note was recovered from the complainant Prafulla vide Ex.P.6. After that, on searching the motorcycle of the co-accused Manoj Minj, 31 fake currency notes each of 100 rupees i.e. Rs.3,100/- were recovered from the trunk of his motorcycle, which were seized vide memo Ex.P.8. Later, on the basis of memorandum statements of the co-accused Manoj Minj and the accused persons/respondents herein, 128 fake currency notes of Rs.100/- each were seized from them. Those fake notes were examined by the Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur Brancyh and upon examination, the said Bank found that those notes are fake notes. 3. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused 3 persons/respondents under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC and the charges were read over before the respondents, who abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents in support of its case. Statements of accused/respondents were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In their defence, the respondents did not examine any witness, but exhibited two documents as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. 5. After appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary, the learned trial Court convicted the co-accused Manoj Minj under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC, while acquitting the accused persons/respondents herein of the same charge by giving benefit of doubt, as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this appeal by the State. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. He submits that as per statement of P.W. 10 P.C.Rai, Investigating Officer, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt but the learned trial Court erred that fake currency notes were seized from the possession of the respondents in pursuance of their memorandum statements, which is ample and sufficient evidence to connect the accused persons/respondents in crime in question and despite that, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons /respondents without appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 4 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents jointly submit that the prosecution witnesses, namely, Vishnu (P.W.1), Alladeen Rahim (P.W.2) and Bhawani Shankar (P.W.8) have not supported the case of the prosecution and they are pocket witnesses of the Police. P.W.2 Alladeen Rahim and P.W.8 Bhawani Shankar both are journalists and regularly visiting the Police Station and that, the other prosecution witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case with respect to seizure of alleged currency notes from them. They further submit that the alleged seized currency notes have not been properly sealed and not sent for safe custody in Malkhana of Police Station and there was no proper sample seal affixed in respective property seizure memos. On these premises, they submit that after proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court recorded the finding of acquittal of the respondents, which does not call for warrant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 5 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 11. F.I.R. (Ex.P.22) was lodged by P.W.3 Prafulla, who stated in his statement that co-accused Manoj Minj has purchased Cock and paid him currency note of Rs.100/- and later he came to know through one shopkeeper that the said note was fake and thereafter he lodged the F.I.R. vide Ex.P.22 against the co-accused Manoj Minj and F.I.R. (Ex.P.22) also shows that the offence under Sections 489-B and 489-C 6 of IPC was registered on 24.09.2002 against Manoj Minj only. 12. P.W.10 P.C.Rai, Incharge Police Station, Kunkuri has stated that pursuant to memorandum statement of Manoj Minj, on 30.09.2002 he has recorded the memorandum statement of accused Rajesh Sahu (R- 4) and has seized 6 fake currency notes of Rs.100/- each from pillow cover vide Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2. He has also stated that similarly as per memorandum statement of accused Mohd. Ibrahim (R-3) recorded on 30.09.2002, he has seized 4 fake currency notes of each Rs.100/- from the pocket of full pant vide Ex.P.3 & P.4. Likewise, from Sanjeet Tirkey (R-2) he has also recovered 53 fake currency notes of Rs.100/- from the air bag kept in his house, pursuant to his memorandum statement recorded on 25.09.2002 and seizure memo vide Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.12 and vide memorandum statement (Ex.P.14) of Mohanram (R-1), 11 fake currency notes of each Rs.100/- kept in Almirah were recovered and the same were seized vide Ex.P.15 and as per memorandum statement (Ex.P.17) of accused Mujahid Islam (R-5) recorded on 07.10.2002, two currency notes of each Rs.100/- wrapped in untwisted thread of undergarment were recovered and the same were seized vide Ex.P.18 before the witnesses Alladeen Rahim (P.W.2) and Bhawani Shankar (P.W.8). However, in his cross-examination, Investigating Officer admitted that both the witnesses, namely, Aladeen Rahim (P.W.2) and Bhawani Shankar (P.W.8) were shown to be labourers, but in fact, they are journalists and did not show their profession as journalists in their memorandum statements and seizure memos, which creates serious lapse on the part of prosecution. He further admitted specifically that although he recovered the 4 fake currency notes from the full pant of Ibrahim Ansari, but the said full 7 pant has not been seized by him. Likewise, he has also not seized the pillow cover, twisted thread of underwear and air bag from which the alleged currency notes were seized from the accused Rajesh Sahu (R- 4), Mujahid Islam (R-5) and Sanjeet Tirkey (R-2) making the prosecution story suspicion. He also admitted that he did not prepare any spot map from where the alleged currency notes were seized. 13. In this way, from the above evidence, it can safely be inferred that although F.I.R. has been registered vide Ex.P.22, but the same has been registered against the co-accused Manoj Minj only and other accused persons, i.e., respondents herein have not been named and the witnesses of alleged search and seizure proceedings, i.e., P.W.1 Vishnu P.W.2 Alladeen Rahim, P.W.8 Bhawani Shankar have been declared hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, considering the statements of above prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said that alleged fake currency notes were seized from the respondents. Moreover, the seizure memos (Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.12, Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.18) do not bear any sample seal of the seized property. Further more, the prosecution has not produced any document to show that the alleged seized property – fake currency notes was kept in Thana Malkhana for safe custody in a sealed condition. 14. It is bounden duty of the prosecution to seal the seized property and to keep the same in safe custody, but the prosecution has failed to discharge its duty. The prosecution has also not been able to show the exact place from where the alleged fake currency notes were seized. Besides above, P.W.1 Vishnu, P.W.2 Alladeen Rahim, P.W.8 Bhawani Shankar and P.W.6 Jagdev Ram Kushwaha as well as P.W.9 Basil 8 Tirkey have turned hostile as they did not support the prosecution story. 15. The learned Trial Court, after elaborate appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence rightly held that the prosecution has not proved the involvement of the respondents herein and consequently, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jafaruddeen & Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 17. For the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2003 acquitting the respondents/accused persons is affirmed and the appeal filed by the State against their acquittal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani