IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:- HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS. CRA 349 OF 2015 KUMUD MANDAL & ANR. VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL For the Appellant : Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parvej Anam, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rita Dutta, Adv. Reserved on : 09.04.2026 Judgement on : 08.07.2026 Uploaded on : 08.07.2026 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.:- 1. This criminal appeal is filed against the Judgement and order of conviction dated 29.5.2015 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge, 4th Court, Malda in Sessions Trial case no. 33 (6) of 2014 whereby the appellants were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each for the offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code. Page 2 of 13 Factual matrix of the Case 2. The case started on the basis of a suo moto complaint lodged by SI Ranjit Majumder on 23.01.2014 before the I.C. Habibpur P.S. District, Malda the two accused persons with seized article of total 129 numbers of forged Indian currency note of Rs.500/- each of different numbers after receiving the source information. In terms of the complaint the complainant received a source information that some KLO activist were holding secret meeting at deserted place at Chuna Kandar forest near Raghutara Mission in which accused Kumod Mondal wearing a black trousers, black shoes and orange black stripped jumper were present who was wanted in Habibpur P.S. case 245/13 dated 28.12.13 under Section 326/307/34 Indian Penal Code read with Section 251(a)/27 Arms Act. The information was diarized being Habibpur P.S. GDE No-786 dated 22.01.2014 and as per direction of I/C Habibpur P.S. the complainant along with SI Jhoton Prosad, SI Pabitra Kumar Mahato, ASI S. Bhattacharya, ASI Bipul Sarkar and available force left for Tahutara village side in Government vehicle and another hired vehicle left for Chunakander forest side at 20:45 hours to work out the said information. On their way to the Chunakander forest side they came across two disinterested witnesses namely Joshef Kisku and Ram Hansda whom they disclosed their identities and this spontaneously agreed to accompany them as disinterested witness. After that they kept their vehicle at Raghutara village and approached Chunakander forest side on foot and reaching there at 21.55 hrs. They spread surrounding the said forest at a major portion and found 8/10 people talking at the centre of the forest in a low voice. They raided the area and flashing their torches and disclosing their identities and they manage to apprehend two accused persons and others fled away in the darkness of the night. On interrogation the accused discloses their respective name and address and search was conducted after observing the procedures and Rs. 52,000/- of FICN was found in the left front pocket of the trouser of accused Kumud Mondal and Rs.12500/- FICN was found in the back pocket of the trouser of Aitu Roy respectively. Respective voter ID card was also found from the respective accused persons. A black colour purse containing Rs. 6500/- (1000 × 6,500 ×1) original Indian Currency was found. In the back pocket of the accused Kumud Mondol.During interrogation they stated that they were supposed to deliver FICN to their leader Malkhan Sing who was likely to come to Chunakander forest from his secret hide out to receive the same. Since the accused persons violated the provision as laid down in 489B/489C of Indian Penal Code. The complainant arrested the accused persons and seized FICN amounting Rs.64500/-, original Indian Currency amounting to Rs.6500/-, black leather purse, voter ID card of the accuse person under proper seizure list signed by the witnesses. On the basis of such complaint the Habibpur P.S. no. 12/14 dated 23rd January, 2014 under Section 489B/489C Indian Penal Code started and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted against them and the charge was framed by the Learned Additional District and Session Judge, 4th Court, Malda after the case was sent before the Court on commitment. The charges were read out to the accused person to whom they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial commenced. Page 4 of 13 3. The Learned Sessions Court after assigned the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the oral and documentary evidence and the considering the submissions advanced by the prosecution as well as the defence counsel pass the order of conviction against both the accused person under Section 489C IPC. Aggrieved thereby this appeal has been filed. 4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant submits that the order of conviction and sentence is not maintainable in the eye of law as the no expert witness was produced before the Court and the prosecution intentionally withheld him by not producing before him before the Learned Trial Court which raises adverse presumption against the prosecution. There are procedural laches while search and seizure was made as nowhere in the evidence it could be found that members of raiding police personnel took the consent of the accused to search their body or any such consent was given for that purpose. It is further submitted that no attention was draw to the appellant during the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they would be searched by the police personnel and hence it was in accordance with the law. That apart the judgement and order of conviction was entirely based on the evidence of prosecution witnesses who are the police personnel stated to be present at the time of seizure but such evidence was not corroborated by any public witness. The seizure list was not proved since the witnesses denied their presence at the time of seizure. The Currency alleged to be seized from the possession of the appellant did not have any level or signature of the police personnel for proper identification. 5. The Learned prosecution on the other hand raised objection and submitted that the accused persons were found from the spot which was raided by the team of a police personnel on the basis of source information and after observing the required formalities.The FICN were found from the possession of the accused persons which has never been denied and there was no procedural laches as raised by the defence counsel. The Learned Trial Court after considering the evidences both oral and documentary passed such order of conviction which is not required to be interfered with as no cogent reason can be assigned for the same by the appellant. Accordingly prayed for dismissal of this appeal. Analysis 6. Having heard the submissions of both the Learned Counsels and after going to the materials on record the moot question falls for consideration is that whether the order of conviction was passed by the Learned Session Court is sustainable in the eye of law or not. In this case in order to bring home the charges the prosecution has adduced eight witnesses who are SI of Police Ranjit Majumder as P.W. 1 and the complainant of the case, SI of Police Jhoton Prasad as P.W. 2, ASI of Police Satyabrata Bhattacharya as P.W. 3, ASI of Police Bipul Kumar Sarkar as P.W. 4, Joshef Kisku as P.W. 5, Ram Hasda as P.W. 6, S.I. pf Police Pabitra Kumar Mahato as P.W. 7 and the I.O. of the instant case S.I. of Police Alok Bhowmik as P.W. 8. The seizure list and the signatures on the level and the witnesses on level and formal FIR, rough sketch map in index and expert report were exhibited. The twenty five pieces Currency not of denomination of Rs. 500/- each was exhibited as Mat exhibit 1 and 104 pieces Currency note of denomination of Rs.500 each exhibited as Mat exhibit 2. P.W. 1 has stated in his examination in chief what has been disclosed in his written complaint. He proved his signature on the written complaint and on the seizure list and on the level. He recovered 104 pieces of 500 notes from Kumud Mondal and 25 pieces of 500 notes from Aitu Roy. During his cross-examination made on behalf of accused Aitu Roy the witness admitted that there was no identification mark in the suspected notes and on presumption he identified it. He could not say the number of their vehicle which was there for raid or the name of its driver. He could not say on which side the mission is situated or the distance between the nearest villager and the place of occurrence. He could not say the name of village from where the witnesses were collected and he did not put signature in the first phrase of the seizure list. In his cross-examination on behalf of Kumud Mondal he deposed that he did not produce the command certificate for that raid on that day before the court and I.O. has not taken it. He admitted that the notes and the wallet as seized were not produced before the Court. On that day he denied that suggestion that as the accused were suspected KPP supporter so they were implicated in a false case as per instruction of the Superior Officer. 7. P.W. 2 Satyabrata Bhattacharyya who accompanied SI Ranjit Majumder on that day deposed that they reached Chunakander forest about 10 P.M. and found some people gossiping in a field and as per instruction of Ranjit Babu they surrounded them and could apprehend two persons on spot who are the accused persons rest persons fled away. Ranjit Babu searched them and found 125 pieces of counterfeit notes of Rs. 500/- from the possession of Kumud then said 104 pieces of counterfeit notes of Rs.500/- was found from Kumud. The witness further deposed that Ranjit Babu searched Aitu and found 25 pieces of counterfeit notes of Rs. 500/- form possession of Aitu. He seized the fake notes and made label in presence of the public witnesses and police personnel where this witness put the signature and he proved his signature. He identified the 25 pieces of 500 notes recovered from Aitu Roy and 10 piece of 500 notes recovered from Kumud. During his cross-examination on behalf of Aitu Roy he admitted there was no identification mark in the suspected notes and on presumption he identified it. He could not say the number of their vehicle or the name of the driver or could recollect from which side they entered into the forest. He also could not say the distance between the nearest village and the P.O. and the name of the village where from the witness were collected. He also did not put signature in the first page of the seizure list. P.W. 3 Bipul Kumar Sarkar another member of the raiding team reiterated same version as of the P.W. 2 excepting that , Ranjit Babu searched the accused and found 129 pieces of counterfeit notes of Rs. 500/- from the accused person and he seized the fake note and put label in presence of public witnesses. During his cross-examination he could not give the number of the vehicle or the name of driver or the witnesses collected from which village and denied the suggestion that they did not made any raid on 22.01.2014 or no such counterfeit notes were recovered from Kumud or Aitu.PW4Bipul Kumar Sarkar who was posted on 22.1.2014 he was posted as ASI at Habibur P.S and he accompanied SI Ranjit Majumdar to the forest. According to this witness 129 pieces of counterfeit notes of Rs. 500/- from the accused persons. He also like the other members of raiding team could not provide the number of the vehicle or name of the Driver. 8. P.W. 5 Josef Kisku, who is a cultivator and a seizure list witness who identified his signature in the document but could not say about any incident and her was not examined by the I.O. and could not identify the accused person. At this stage the witness was declared hostile on the prayer made by prosecution. During his cross examination by all that accused he said that for some personal work when he went to P.S. Police Officer Obtained his signature in blank paper and Chunakander forest and Raghutara Mission are on the same side of the road. P.W. 6 Ram Hasda is also a cultivator and a seizure list witness who further identified his signature could not say about any incident and also could not identify the accused and was declared hostile. He deposed during cross-examination by all accused and that for some personal work he went to P.S. Police Officer obtained his signature in a blank paper. P.W. 7 Pabitra Kumar Mahato is an SI of Police who was also a member of the raiding team and according to him they reached at about 8:15 P.M. at the Chunakander forest. They found 8/9 person sitting there and when they moved maximum fled away and they could apprehend the present accused persons but could not recollect how many pieces were recovered by Ranjit Babu from their possession. However a seizure list was prepared and on returning to Police Station Ranjit Babu filed the complaint. During his cross examination by Aitu Roy he deposed that Ranjit Majumder was his Junior Officer and also another Officer was posted in the P.S whose name was Prasun Khan and this witness did not handed over any document to I.O. show that he was duty Officer-in-charge at that time. These witnesses did not put signature in any document. 9. Mr. Alok Bhowmik P.W. 8 the I.O. of the case was entrusted to investigate the case on 23.01.14 when he visited the P.O. prepared rough sketch map with index. He sent the seized note for examination by Expert. SI Bikash Halder collected the Expert report which was marked with exhibit. After completion of investigation SI Bikash Halder submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons. P.W. 5 Joshef Kisku stated before him that on 22nd January, 2014 in his presence police arrested two accused and on such found some counterfeit notes which were seized in his presence and he put his signature on seizure list. P.W. 6 Ram Hasda also stated before him that on 22.01.2014 in his presence police arrested two accused persons and on search found some counterfeit notes of which seized in his presence and he put his signature on seizure list. This witness during his cross examination deposed that he arrested Malkahn Sing on 13.04.14 and he got the seized article from Malkhana Office however, he could not show any note in his CD. He asked Malkhana Officer about the seized article which was handed over to him and after receiving the seized article he did not do any GD. He did not receive the seized Alamat from the sketch map and index and it is not possible to say who identified the P.O. It was not mentioned in the CD who identified the said two persons. He did not interrogate the de facto complainant while the content of the seizure list was not explained to the seizure witnesses. He did not cite Malkahana Officer as a witness in the present case and he did not seize the Malkhana Register and also any GD, CC, Logbhog during his investigation. This witness did not examine Sumit Chandra Karkmakar who brought fake note to the General Manager BRBNMPL. On 4.01.2014 he did not examine any witness of Raghutara Mission when he sent FICN for expert opinion, no GD was lodged. Page 10 of 13 10. In this case during examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C they only denied the incriminating materials placed before them and also denied that anything was recovered from their custody. 11. It is settled proposition of law that in order to attract Section 489C mere possession of counterfeit note is not sufficient unless the Mens rea having knowledge about the counterfeit note and to use it or receiving or buying as genuine note is to be established. Before that it is to be established that the notes were recovered from the possession of the accused and it was counterfeit. In the present case excepting the raiding team no other witness supported the prosecution case and the seizure list witnesses turned hostile. The complaint was typed by a civic police whose name could not be remembered by the P.W 1 and it was not mentioned that it was written as per instruction of the complainant .In the F.I.R it was not mentioned that Rs 500 counterfeit notes were recovered .Before the Learned court the envelop was opened containing two bundles of notes ,one with 104 pieces of Rs 500/- denominations and one with 25 pieces of Rs 500 notes .According to his testimony 25 pieces of notes were recovered from accused Aitu Roy and from Kumud 104 pieces .P.W 1 further deposed 6 pieces of Indian Currency notes of Rs 1000/- was found from a wallet from Kumud but the wallet ,6 pieces of currency notes were not produced before the court .P.W 2 deposed 125 pieces of notes recovered from the possession of Kumud then said from Kumud 104 pieces and from Aitu 25 pieces . P.W. 4 deposed that 129 pieces of notes of Rs 500 /were found from their possession and P.W. 7 could not remember the number of notes recovered .The I.O. deposed that P.W. 2 did not say about seizure of 6pieces of Rs 1000 notes, one 500 note and one voter I. Card from the wallet of Kumud. Admittedly no identification marks in the suspected notes was made which are apparent from the evidence of all the witnesses. The Report being exhibit 6 was not proved by the Manager which is a letter addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate ,Malda Court by the Manager Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Limited .The report suggest that they received 129 (500 × 129 ) notes in one sealed envelop by hand through C/792 Sudhir kumar Karmakar on 5.2.2014.The I.O never produced any document by which he send the disputed notes for expert opinion and he admitted during his cross examination that no GD was lodged while sending such notes. He did not say to which expert he send such report and by whom .The learned trial court merely marked the document as exhibit which was produced by the I.O when it was addressed to the Learned Chief Judicial Officer .However such exhibited document prima facie disclose the number of notes as stated by P.W 4 and also initially by P.W. 3 who later on corrected the number. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidences of the prosecution witnesses no convincing materials can be found to establish prosecution case .The I.O. did not seize the log book of the car by which the raiding party went to such forest on source information and no command certificate was produced to the I.O. As per information received accused Kumud who was wanted in connection with a different case engaged in a meeting at the forest with 8/9 persons but in the complaint it was stated that they got the information that some KLO activists were holding a secret meeting within the forest . The P.W. 1 could not say the number of the other case in connection of which they were wanted. The reports of the concerned Authority and Currency Note though confirm that the seized notes were counterfeit but since the seizure itself was not proved and severe inconsistencies found in the testimonies within the members of the raiding team , the notes being counterfeit alone does not establish the offences under Sections 489C IPC. Conclusion 12. Therefore it is clear that there was a faulty investigation in order to establish that on receiving any source information regarding possessing counterfeit notes the raiding party went to the forest or such counterfeit notes were found from the possession of the accused persons .The seizure list were not proved as the seizure list witnesses turned hostile as they all stated that they put their signature on a blank paper. The Learned session court did not accept such denial and put reliance on the evidence of the police officials and passed the order of conviction. 13. This court is unable to accept the views of the learned trial court in absence of any convincing materials on the basis of which an order of conviction can be passed for commission of offences under Section 489C IPC and hence such Judgement and order of conviction is liable to be set aside. 14. Hence this instant Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed .The Judgement and order of conviction dated 29.5.2015 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge, 4th Court, Malda in Sessions Trial case no 33(6) of 2014 is hereby set aside. 15. The Appellants are accordingly acquitted from the respective charges and are discharged from their respective bail bond forthwith. 16. The Department is directed to forward the T.C.R to the concerned court forthwith for intimation and taking appropriate action. 17. Urgent certified copy Urgent of the order if applied for be provided to the parties upon observance of all necessary requirements. [CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]