1 2025:CGHC:50243 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2005 Judgment Reserved on 23.09.2025 Judgment Delivered on 09 .10.2025 CRA No. 451 of 2005 1 - Sardha Kumar Patel , S/o Lakhanlal Patel, aged about 26 years, R/o Village – Dayalpur, P.S. - Bilaigarh, Distt – Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sadanand Patel, S/o Haridas Patel, aged about 28 years, R/o Kridari Dadar, P.S. - Basna, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through : P.S. - Basna, Distt – Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi C A V Judgment 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.04.2005 passed by the learned Second Upper Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 399/2004, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.10.10 15:59:13 +0530 2 Appellant No. 1- Sardha Kumar Patel Conviction Sentence Under Section 489 (B) of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months Appellant No. 2- Sadanand Patel Conviction Sentence Under Section 489 (C) of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 6-6-2004 at about 10.30 am, appellant No. 1/accused Sardha Kumar Patel went to Fuljhar Petrol Pump situated at Basna and filled 9.14 liters of petrol in his Freedom motorcycle and for this, he gave Rs. 320/- to the petrol pump assistant Trilochan (P.W. 6), out of which, one note was of Rs. 100/- denomination, one note was of Rs. 20/- denomination and four notes were of Rs. 50/- denomination. On getting suspicion, complainant Trilochan (PW 6) saw the aforesaid currency notes of Rs. 50/- denomination and noticed that, those notes were seemed to be counterfeit currency. He immediately informed the petrol pump manager Ajay vishal Nishad (P.W. 7), who also seen those notes and suspecting them to be counterfeit currency, called the police. The Station House Officer G. N. Bhagat (P.W. 8) reached the spot and 3 lodged Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-10). During interrogation of appellant No. 1 Sardha Kumar Patel, he recorded his memorandum statement (Ex. P-11), in which he revealed that, co-accused Antram Nayak alias Antu had given him counterfeit currency of Rs. 900/- of Rs. 50/- denomination to circulate them in the market, from which, he paid Rs. 300/- after filling petrol to the pump operator. He has kept Rs. 600/- under the seat of his motorcycle LML Freedom wrapping it in a polythene. Based on his memorandum statement, 6 notes of Rs. 50 denomination were seized from him vide seizure memo (Ex. P-12) and 12 notes of Rs. 50/- denomination were seized from his motorcycle along with LML Freedom motorcycle bearing Chassis No. C7LJ362828, Engine No. E55JL345740 vide seizure memo Ex. P-13. Thereafter numbered FIR (Ex. P-14) was registered under Section 489(E) of the IPC against Sardha Kumar Patel. In the memorandum statement (Ex. P-7), co-accused Antram alias Antu Nayak revealed that, co-accused Kamal Singh gave him counterfeit currency of Rs. 9,000/- , out of which, he has given Rs. 4,200/- to Guddu alias Motiram of village Kushbhatha, Rs. 3,600/- to Sohan Gond of village Kushbhatha, Ra. 1,000/- to Guddu Rajput of village Barpani, Rs. 900/- to Sardha Kumar (Appellant No. 1) and he himself has hidden Rs. 400 of Rs. 50 denomination and 2 notes of Rs. 100/ denomination, which are also counterfeit currency, on roof of his house wrapping in a bag. Based on his memorandum, 2 notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and 4 notes of Rs. 50/- denomination were seized from his house vide seizure memo Ex. P-8. 4 2.1 Co-accused Kamal Singh in his memorandum statement (Ex. P-1) disclosed that, he came in contact of Vishiram, Subhash Pradhan and Ramesh Bhoi, who used to circulate counterfeit currency. Accused persons Kamal Singh, Vishiram, Sadanand brought ink and papers etc. from Raipur and got printed counterfeit currency from co- accused Harihar Chauhan. He was given Rs. 10,000/- cunterfiet currency to circulate in the market, out of which, he has given Rs. 9,000/- to Tappulal, but he could not circulate the same, then the same was given to co-accused Antram. Antram gave Rs. 3,600/- to co- accused Sohan Gond and Guddu. He again took Rs. 7,000/- from Subhash Pradhan, out of which, Rs. 470/- he gave to Chamar Singh, Rs. 900/- to Antram, to circulate in the market. He further revealed that, he has hidden counterfeit currency of Rs. 2,200/- in a box of his house. Based on his memorandum statement, Rs. 2,200/- of Rs. 100/- denomination and Rs. 50/- denomination were seized from a box of his house vide seizure memo [Ex. P-1 (repeat number)]. Appellant No. 2 Sadanand disclosed in his memorandum statement (Ex. P-2) that, he has hidden Rs. 450/- of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- denomination in an almirah, based on which, vide seizure memo (Ex. P-4), 4 notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were seized and 3 notes of Rs. 50/- denomination were seized. 2.2 In memorandum statement (Ex. P-3) of co-accused Sohanlal, he revealed that, he has hidden 7 notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and one note of Rs. 50/- denomination in his bicycle shop, based on which, 7 notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and one note 5 of Rs. 50/- denomination were seized from his bicycle shop vide Ex. P- 5. Memorandum statement (Ex. P-15) of co-accused Ramesh Bhoi was also recorded and based on his memorandum statement, vide seizure memo (Ex. P-16), 2 colour monitors, 2 CPU, 2 key boards, 2 mouse, 2 colour printers, 1 scanner, 2 pish box set ( one set), other electronic articles and wire, etc. were seized. Fake currency was also seized from his house vide Ex. P-17. 1 computer monitor, 1 CPU, 1 printer, mouse, cable etc. were seized from house of co-accused Lalbahadur alias Bhimsen vide Ex. P-18. Seized counterfeit currency notes were got examined from the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, branch Saraipali vide Ex. P-19. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. Appellants along with co- accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against accused Sardha Kumar (appellant No. 1), Kamal Singh, Chamra Ram alias Chamar , Antram alias Antu, Harihar, Lal Bahadur, Ramesh Bhoi, Sadanand (appellant No. 2) and Sohanlal was filed for the offence under Section 489 (B)(A, C, D) showing co- accused Subhash Pradhan, Guddu alias Motiram, Guddu alias Chain Singh Rajput, Pukram and Vishiram to be absconder. 3. Learned 2nd Upper Sessions Judge, Mahasamund framed charges under Section 489B of IPC against Sardha Kumar (appellant No. 1) and Antu alias Antram, charges under Sections 498D and 489C, IPC against accused Kamal Singh Patel and Ramesh Bhoi, charge under Section 489C against accused sadanand Patel (appellant No. 2), Sohanlal, Chamra alias Chamar Singh Guddu alias Chainsingh Rajput, 6 charge under Section 489D against Lal Bahadur, charge under Section 489A against accused Harihar Chauhan, charge under Sections 489B or 489C of IPC against co-accused Subhash Pradhan, Guddu alias Motiram and Pukram. Charges were read and explained to the accused persons, who abjured their guilt and entered into defence by submitting that they are innocent. 4. In order to prove the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded in which, they denied all the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and their false implication, but they have not examined any witness in their defence. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted co-accused Kamal Singh, Ramesh Bhoi and Lal Bahadur of the offence under Section 489(D), IPC and accused Harihar Singh Chauhan of the offence under Section 489A, IPC but convicted accused Sardha Kumar under Section 489B, IPC, Antram, Kamal Singh, Ramesh Bhoi, Sadanand, Sohan and Chamar Singh under Section 489C, IPC. Instant appeal has been filed only by appellant No. 1/ accused Sardha Kumar and appellant No. 2/accused Sadanand Patel, who have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the opening paragraph. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused would submit that, as per case of the prosecution, appellant No. 1 Sardha Kumar after filling 9. 7 14 litre petrol in his motorcycle, he paid Rs. 320/- for the same to the petrol pump operator, out of which, one note was in Rs. 100/- denomination, 1 note was in Rs. 20/- denomination and 4 notes were in Rs. 50/- denomination, out of which, notes of Rs. 50/- denomination were said to be counterfeit currency. She further submits that, notes were given to the pump operator, who suspected notes of Rs. 50/- denomination to be counterfeit currency, but Rs. 320/- of aforesaid denomination have not been seized from petrol pump operator. Even notes of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 20/- have also not been seized by the police, rather notes of Rs. 50/- denomination have been seized from the appellant No. 1 Sardha Kumar vide seizure memo Ex. P-12 and 12 notes of Rs. 50/- denomination were seized from his motorcycle vide Ex. P-13. Thus, alleged notes paid by appellant No. 1 Sardha Kumar have not been seized from petrol pump operator, which Sardha Kumar had paid to him, rather all the notes have been shown to be seized from appellant Sardha Kumar. Thus, seizure itself is suspicious. She further submits that, alleged counterfeit currency has not been got examined from competent authority of Reserve Bank of India or any other authorized expert, rather only opinion of the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Saraipali branch Suresh Kumar Hidau (P.W. 9) has been taken to establish the fact that, alleged notes were counterfeit currency, but he himself has admitted in his deposition that, he has not got any training to examine the counterfeit currency. He has also admitted that, alleged counterfeit currency notes were brought to him in open condition. Thus, it was not seal packed while making seizure of it from accused persons. Therefore, it also cannot be ruled out that 8 those notes were changed between seizure and production of the same before Suresh Kumar Hidau, Branch Manager (P.W. 9). She further submits that, Amritlal, Kotwar (P.W. 2) has been named as witness of the memorandum (Ex. P-2) and seizure memo (Ex. P-4) pertaining to appellant No. 2 Sadanand, but this witness has not supported those documents, except his signature. Rather, he became hostile. Likewise, Trilochan Bhoi (P.W. 6) and Ajay Vishal Nishad (P.W. 7) are said to be witnesses of memorandum statement (Ex. P-11) and seizure memo Ex. P-12 and Ex. P-13 of appellant No. 1 Sardha Kumar Patel, but they have also not supported those documents, except their signature, rather they have specifically stated in their deposition that, no seizure was made in front of them from appellant No. 1 Sardha Patel. They have also admitted that, their signatures were taken by the police in police station. She lastly submitted that, total case of prosecution is based on seizure from the appellants based on their alleged memorandum statements, but those documents have not been proved by the prosecution. It has not been proved that it was counterfeit currency, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and prayed that the instant appeal may be rejected. 8. I have heard the arguments made by the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 9 9. Trilochan (P.W. 6) is said to be pump operator. He has stated in his deposition that, on the date and time of incident, accused/appellant No. 1 Sardha Kumar came in their petrol pump and got filled 5 ltrs. Petrol in his Freedom motorcycle, for that, he paid 4 notes of Rs. 50/- denomination. On being seen, he doubted those notes to be fake notes, therefore, he showed those notes to the Manager of the petrol pump, who made call to police station, thereafter police came there and conducted an inquiry. He has stated that he lodged Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-10). Though in his deposition, para 4 and 5, he has stated that, photo of Gandhiji was not printed in those notes in comparison to original notes, those notes were found to be thin, but what quantity of petrol was filled by the accused/appellant No. 1 Sardha Kumar in his motorcycle and total how much rupees of what denomination was paid against it, is contradictory in deposition of complainant and FIR, because as per FIR, appellant had filled 9.14 litres petrol in his motorcycle , against which he had paid Rs. 320/-, out of which, 1 note of Rs. 100/- denomination, 1 note of Rs. 20/- denomination and 4 notes of Rs. 50/- denomination were there. Ajay Vishal Nishad (P.W. 7) was manager of the petrol pump. He has also supported the statement of complainant Trilochan Bhoi (P.W. 6) that, against filling petrol, Rs. 320/- was given by the person, 4 notes were of Rs. 50/- denomination and the notes feels smooth to the touch and photo of Gandhiji was not printed in white portion of the notes. He has further deposed that, serial number of all the notes were the same. 10. From the deposition of Trilochan (P.W. 6) and Ajay Vishal Nishad (P.W. 10 7), it is clear that, after filling petrol in motorcycle, appellant Sardha Kumar had given Rs. 320, out of which, 4 notes were of Rs. 50/- denomination, 1 note was of Rs. 20/- denomination and one note was of Rs. 100/- denomination, but those Rs. 320/- were not seized from complainant Trilochan (P.W. 6) or Manager Ajay Vishal Nishad (P.W. 7) rather, as per seizure memo (Ex. P-12), 6 notes of Rs. 50/- denomination were seized from appellant Sardha Kumar, whereas Trilochan (P.W. 6) has not only rebutted seizure , rather on being asked by the Court, he has specifically denied that, after giving notes by the appellant Sardha Kumar to him and after showing those notes to the Manager, he had returned those notes to appellant No. 1 Sardha Kumar Patel. Further, Ajay Vishal Nishad (P.W. 7), who is also a seizure witness of Ex. P-12, has deposed that, serial number of all 4 notes was one and the same, but as per seizure memo (Ex. P-12), serial number of only 3 notes was the same and sr. number of one note was different. Thus, what quantity of petrol was filled by appellant Sardha Kumar in his motorcycle, how many rupees was paid against it, cost of petrol paid by appellant Sardha Kumar was kept by petrol pump operator or it was returned to the appellant Sardha Kumar and Sr. No. of those 4 notes of Rs. 50/- denomination was same or not, is found to be highly contradictory in deposition of aforesaid two witnesses and case of prosecution. 11. Counterfeit currency notes were seized from the appellants on the basis of their respective memorandum statements. Those memorandum statements and seizure was made by G. N. Bhagat (P.W. 8), who is Investigating Officer of instant case. Amritlal (P.W. 2) is said to be witness of memorandum statement (Ex. P-2) and seizure memo (Ex. P-4) 11 pertaining to appellant Sadanand Patel, but he has deposed that being Kotwar, he had gone to police station, where he was told by the police that, two persons have been caught on account of counterfeit currency, therefore, on being asked by the police, he has put his signature on memorandum statement (Ex. P-2) and seizure memo (Ex. P-4). He has specifically denied that, appellant Sadanand had made any memorandum statement or the police had seized alleged fake currency from him. Second witness Sundarlal of Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-4, who is also a Kotwar, has not been examined by the prosecution. Since Amritlal (P.W. 2) has not supported aforesaid memorandum statement (Ex. P-2) and seizure memo (Ex. P-4), therefore, only on the basis of deposition of Investigating Officer G.N. Bhagat (P.W. 8), those documents cannot be held to be proved particularly considering the fact situation of the instant case. 12. Trilochan (P.W. 6) and Ajay Vishal Nishad (P.W. 7) are said to be witnesses of memorandum (Ex. P-11) of appellant No. 1 Sardha Kumar and seizure memo (Ex. P-12 and Ex. P-13) pertaining to appellant No. 1 Sardha Kumar. These witnesses have also not supported those documents, rather, they have deposed that, neither memorandum statement (Ex. P-11) of appellant No. 1 Sardha Kumar was recorded in front of them nor seizure memos Ex. P-12 and Ex. P-13 were made in front of them. They have also deposed that, their signatures in those documents were taken in police station, whereas as per those documents, they were prepared on the spot i.e. in Phuljhar Petrol Pump, Basna. Thus, in absence of support of independent witnesses, only on the basis of statement of Investigating Officer G.N. Bhagat (P.W. 8), 12 those documents cannot be held safely to be proved having considered the contradictions, as has been discussed in foregoing paragraphs and other facts of the case. 13. It is a case of counterfeit currency allegedly seized from the appellants, but the case of the prosecution in this regard as to whether those notes were counterfeit notes or not, is mainly based on the report given by Suresh Kumar Hidau (P.W. 9), who was Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Saraipali branch. This witness has deposed that, he had examined alleged counterfeit currency produced before him from Ultra Violet machine and opined/reported vide his endorsement made in Ex. P- 19 itself sent to him by the Station House Officer, Basna, Distt. Mahasamund that, those notes were counterfeit notes. This witness has deposed that, he had examined those notes in Ultra Violet machine but this fact has not been mentioned by him in his report (endorsement), rather he has only noted in Ex. P-19 that “We certified that all the notes produced by you are forged”. Thus, deposition of this witness itself does not get support from his report/endorsement. Further, he has admitted in his cross-examination that, those alleged notes were brought before him without sealed condition. It has also not been mentioned in respective seizure memos that, after seizure of alleged currency notes, those were kept in sealed cover. This witness has also admitted that, he has not got any training to examine counterfeit currency. Therefore, only on the basis of vague and baseless deposition, it cannot be held that, he examined those notes as valid expert to examine fake currency notes. Hence, his report cannot be relied upon. 14. In Umashankar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 642, the 13 Supreme Court categorically held: “A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C is “knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or banknotes are forged or counterfeit”. Without the aforementioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489-B IPC. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489-C in the absence of the mens rea, noted above. ...” 15. In Instant case, neither the prosecution has proved the fact that, alleged notes were seized from appellant nor it has been proved that, alleged notes seized by the police were counterfeit currency as Reserve Bank of India’s certified expert opinion has not been taken by the police in respect of allegedly seized counterfeit currency in instant case. But, learned Upper Sessions Judge, without any cogent evidence has convicted the appellants vide impugned judgment, therefore, it is not found to be sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 16. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant No. 1/accused Sardha Kumar Patel under Section 489(B) of the IPC and appellant No. 2/accused Sadanand Patel under Section 489(C) of the IPC are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. 14 The bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. 18. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge pathak