1 2026:CGHC:4857-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 382 of 2018 • The State of Chhattisgarh, Through- District Magistrate District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Bhagwat Sahu, S/o Rama Sahu, aged about 30 Years, 2. Raju Kashyap, S/o Manrakhan Kashyap, aged about 30 Years, 3. Gangadas Manikpuri, S/o Bhoorudas, aged about 43 Years, All are R/o Rachhabhatha, P.S. Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4. Dujram Saytede, S/o Late Dayaram Saytede, aged about 36 Years, R/o- Kuriyari Bhathapara, P.S. Sheorinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5. Ajay Kumar Khute, S/o Late Tikaitram Khute, aged about 32 Years, R/o- Bhalpahari, P.S. Urga, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6. Tejashwani Kumar Banjare, S/o Ganesh Ram Banjare, aged about 26 Years, R/o- Salihabhata, P.S. Kartala, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 7. Gyandas Kurrey, S/o Goverdhan Das Kurrey, aged about 63 Years, R/o- Semaria, Chowki Lawan, P.S. Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 4 & 7 : None. AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.01.30 16:54:05 +0530 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 29.01.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 30.01.2018 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda- Bazar, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Case No. 34/2017, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of the charges under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 489-M read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”); accused/respondent No. 4 of the charges under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-M read with Section 34 of IPC; accused/respondent Nos. 5 and 6 of the charges under Sections 489- A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D and 489-M read with Section 34 of IPC, and accused/respondent No.7 of the charges under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 489-M read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.01.2017, PW-8 Kishore Chandrakar, Sub-Inspector posted at Police Station Gidhouri, received a secret information that two persons were roaming near Gidhouri Bus Stand on a green motorcycle and were searching for customers to circulate counterfeit currency notes. Acting upon the said information, the police party apprehended accused/respondent No.1 Bhagwat Sahu and accused/respondent No.2 Raju Kashyap, from whose possession counterfeit currency notes of denominations Rs.100/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.2000/- were allegedly seized. On the basis of their memorandum statements, the remaining accused persons/respondent Nos.3 to 7 were arrested and counterfeit currency notes {Rs.100/- (238 notes), Rs.500/- (73 notes) and Rs.2000/- (45), totalling 356 notes} along with computers, 3 printers, scanners and other accessories were allegedly recovered from their possession vide seizure memos Exs. P-7 to P-14, respectively. It was alleged that accused persons namely Dujram, Ajay and Tejashwani had printed counterfeit Indian currency using computer equipment and that the remaining accused persons assisted in circulating the same in different areas. After due inquiry, FIR (Ex.P-46) was registered against the accused persons. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. Accused persons/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charges leveled against them. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. He further submits that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the consistent and reliable testimony of the police witnesses with regard to the seizure of counterfeit currency notes and electronic equipment from the possession of the accused persons. He also submits that there is cogent, reliable and clinching evidence on record to establish that respondents are the authors of the crime in question. Despite the availability of sufficient and convincing evidence, the learned Trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment 4 of acquittal is stated to suffer from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused persons/respondents support the impugned judgment of acquittal and jointly submit that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record. They further submit that the memorandum and seizure witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the alleged recovery of counterfeit currency notes and electronic equipment. They also submit that the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and omissions and in the absence of independent corroboration, the learned trial Court is justified in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. 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, 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.” 9. Case of the prosecution rests primarily upon the alleged recoveries of counterfeit currency notes and electronic devices said to have been seized 5 from the possession of the accused persons. In this regard, evidence of PW-8 Kishore Chandrakar, Investigating Officer, is very significant. He deposed that upon receipt of secret information on 29.01.2017, he proceeded to the spot along with police staff and independent witnesses. According to him, accused- Bhagwat Sahu and Raju Kashyap attempted to flee but were apprehended, and upon search, counterfeit currency notes were recovered from their possession. He further stated that memorandum statements of the apprehended accused persons were recorded, and on the basis of their disclosure statements, other accused persons were arrested and electronic equipment allegedly used for printing counterfeit currency was seized from them. However, on the contrary, in his cross-examination, PW-8 made several material admissions which seriously undermine the prosecution case. He admitted that no document was produced to establish ownership or exclusive possession of the houses from where the electronic articles were allegedly seized. He also admitted that he did not collect any documentary proof to show that the seized computers or printers belonged to the accused persons. He further admitted that no independent customer or member of the public was examined to show that the accused persons had actually circulated or attempted to circulate counterfeit currency. He also admitted that station diary entries regarding departure and return of the police party were not produced before the Court. These omissions and lapses in the investigation cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the alleged recoveries. 10.This apart, the version of PW-8 Kishore Chandrakar is directly contradicted by PW-1 Birbal and PW-2 Parmeshwar Das, who are cited as independent witnesses to the memorandum statements (Exs. P-1 to P-6), seizure memos (Exs. P-7 to P-14), and arrest memos (Exs. P-15 to P-21). Though 6 PW-1 Birbal admitted his signatures on the said documents, but he categorically deposed that no memorandum statement of any accused was recorded in his presence and that no recovery of counterfeit currency notes or electronic articles was made before him. Similarly, PW-2 Parmeshwar Das stated that he did not witness any seizure proceedings and that his signatures were obtained at the police station. Both PW-1 Birbal and PW-2 Parmeshwar Das further admitted that they have good relations with the Station House Officer and frequently visit Police Station Gidhouri. They also admitted that at the time of signing documents Exs. P-1 to P-21, the accused persons were not present. They categorically stated that their signatures were obtained at the police station and not at the place of the alleged recovery. In this way, both these witnesses were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the seizure memos (Exs.P-7 to P-14), only the names of the villages have been mentioned, whereas the exact place from where the alleged articles were recovered ought to have been specifically mentioned in the said seizure memos. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 Birbal and PW-2 Parmeshwar Das completely contradicts the statement of PW-8 Kishore Chandrakar, I.O. regarding recovery of alleged articles in the presence of independent witnesses and renders the entire seizure proceedings highly doubtful, thereby further weakening the prosecution case. 11.Furthermore, PW-4 Dinesh Sahu, Constable, admitted that when he reached Police Station Gidhouri on the morning of 23.02.2017, the material to be taken to the Inspector General of Police was already lying in the room of the Station House Officer and was not taken out from the malkhana and handed over to him. Moreover, PW-5 Siddharth Shankar Mishra, Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, admitted that the sealed envelope 7 handed over to him did not mention the name of any person, bore no seal, signatures of any witness, or malkhana serial number, and that no description of the envelope was recorded in his report. That apart, the prosecution failed to produce the Thana Malkhana Register (Panji) to show the deposit and removal of the seized articles and PW-8 Kishore Chandrakar, I.O. also admitted that no document has been produced to show that the seized property was deposited in or taken out from the malkhana. These serious procedural lapses, including the failure to ensure proper sealing, safe custody, and an unbroken chain of possession, render the prosecution evidence regarding the seizure and custody of the alleged articles wholly unreliable. 12. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statement of PW-8 Kishore Chandrakar, I.O. and his statement does not corroborate with the statements of other prosecution witnesses and the documents available on record with respect to search, seizure and investigation, which makes his version doubtful and untrustworthy. Furthermore, no independent evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to show that the accused persons were actually circulating or attempting to circulate counterfeit notes, nor has any customer or recipient been examined to establish such conduct. Moreover, there is no cogent evidence on record to show that after seizure, the alleged seized articles were kept in proper safe custody. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire proceedings conducted by the prosecution appear to be vitiated and doubtful. 13.The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence came to the conclusion 8 that the prosecution has failed to prove recovery and conscious possession of alleged articles from the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and it has also miserably failed to bring on record any clinching and reliable evidence to show the complicity of the respondents in the crime in question and accordingly, acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the aforesaid charges leveled against them on the basis of benefit of doubt. 14.The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 in case of 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 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." 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be a plausible and possible view. 9 In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 16.Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh