1 CGHC010133232026 2026:CGHC:28855-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 940 of 2026 Shobhnath Toppo S/o Shri Tejaram Toppo Aged About 34 Years R/o Tanki Dafai, Ward No. 15, P.S. Manendragarh, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Jhagrakhand, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.R.Soni, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. CRA No. 921 of 2026 Raju Alias Ranjeet Kashyap S/o Late Narendra Kashyap Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dafai No-1 North Jhagrakhand Police Station Jhagrakhand Police Station Jhagrakhand District- Koriya Chhattisgarh, ---Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Police Police Station - Jhagrakhand District- Koriya Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. R.R.Soni and Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent. 2. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.03.2026 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 28/2024 by the learned Special Judge (NIA) (Ambikapur) District Surguja, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Jail Sentence (Rigorous) Fine Default Jail Sentence (Simple) Appellant-Raju @ Ranjeet Kashyap 420 of the IPC 1 Year Rs. 1000/- 3 months 489(B) of the IPC 4 Years Rs. 5000/- 1 Year 489(C) of the IPC 4 Years Rs. 1000/- 3 Months Appellant-Shobhnath Toppo 489(C) of the IPC 4 Years Rs. 5000/- 1 Year 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Sarita Kenwat, appeared before Police Station Jhagrakhand, District Korea, and submitted a written complaint (Exhibit P-1), stating that she had been working as a labourer at the shop of Raju Kashyap for some time. On 15.09.2019, as she was in need of money, she went to the appellant- Raju Kashyap to collect her wages. Raju Kashyap paid her ten currency notes of ₹100 denomination each. In the evening, she went to the shop of Sushil, a resident of Jhagrakhand, to purchase some goods. She tendered one of the ₹100 notes given by Raju Kashyap, and after 3 deducting the price of the purchased goods, the shopkeeper returned the balance amount to her. On the next day, at about 8:00 p.m., Sushil came to her house and informed her that the ₹100 note with which she had purchased the goods was counterfeit. He returned the said note to her and advised her to lodge a report at the Police Station. On the basis of the said written complaint (Exhibit P-1) submitted by complainant Sarita Kenwat, Crime No. 124/2019 was registered at Police Station Jhagrakhand under Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code (Exhibit P- 22), and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the ten currency notes of ₹100 denomination given to the complainant were seized vide seizure memo Exhibit P-3. Likewise, pursuant to the memorandum statement of accused Raju @ Ranjeet (Exhibit P-6), thirteen counterfeit currency notes were seized at his instance vide Exhibit P-8. Further, as the accused Ranjit Kumar, in his memorandum statement, disclosed the name of Shobhnath, the latter, who had already been arrested in another case, was arrested in the present case after obtaining permission from the Court, and one day's police remand was obtained. His memorandum statement was recorded vide Exhibit P-7, and pursuant thereto, 100 counterfeit currency notes of ₹100 denomination each were seized under Exhibit P-9. The place of occurrence was inspected and the spot map was prepared (Exhibit P-2). The seized counterfeit currency notes were forwarded for examination to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khongapani, along with forwarding letter (Exhibit P-11), from whom the examination report (Exhibit P-15) was received. The seized counterfeit currency notes were also sent for examination through the Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur, by application (Exhibit P-20) to the Director, Currency Note Press, Dewas (Madhya Pradesh), from whom the examination report 4 (Exhibit P-21) was received. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District Korea, for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B read with Section 34, 489-C and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, registered the case as Criminal Case No. 24/2020. Since the case was triable by the Court of Session, it was committed to the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea, vide committal order dated 17.03.2020. Subsequently, in view of the notification of the State Government dated 24.09.2024 and the endorsement of the High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 26.09.2024, whereby the learned trial Court was notified as an NIA Court, the present case was transferred from the Bilaspur to Surguja (Ambikapur) and upon receipt, it was registered as a Special Criminal Case (NIA) and trial was commenced. 4. Charges were framed on 21.10.2022, by the then learned Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur, against accused Raju @ Ranjit Kashyap for the offences punishable under Sections 489-C, 420 and 489-B of the IPC, and against accused Shobhnath Toppo for the offence punishable under Section 489-C of the IPC. The accused denied the prosecution allegations, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. They also expressed their intention to adduce defence evidence. Accordingly, on behalf of accused Raju @ Ranjit, Sampat Kenwat (D.W.-1) was examined as a defence witness. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, namely, Sarita Kenwat (P.W.-1), Sushil Kumar (P.W.-2), Doodhnath (P.W.-3), Jai Kumar Rahi (P.W.-4), Arun Avinash Minj (P.W.- 5 5), Manager P.B. Gupta (P.W.-6), Head Constable Shambhunath Yadav (P.W.-7), Rajendra Pandey (P.W.-8), Head Constable Danish Sheikh (P.W.-9), Head Constable Lalit Kumar Yadav (P.W.-10), Sub-Inspector Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11), and Inspector Devendra Devangan (P.W.-12) and exhibited as many as 23 exhibits. 6. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which either they denied the questions or expressed their ignorance. They stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. 7. The learned trial Court, after considering the statement of witnesses and evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants/ accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants/convict. 8. Mr. R.R.Soni, learned counsel for the appellant-Shobhnath Toppo and Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant-Raju @ Ranjeet Kashyap submit that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and has recorded a perverse finding against the appellants. The entire prosecution case is based on conjectures and surmises and there is no reliable evidence on record. The prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The defence version has not been properly considered and has been rejected without assigning any sufficient and cogent reasons. Dudhnath (PW-3) and Jaykumar Rathi (PW-4) who are the witnesses related to memorandum and seizure proceedings have not supported the case of the prosecution on the point of memorandum and seizure from the appellant-Shobhnath 6 Toppo is doubtful. The appellant-Shobhnath was already in jail before his arrest in the present case and he was taken on remand and after taking permission of his arrest from the Court concerned and thereafter his memorandum statement was recorded and 100 fake currency notes were allegedly seized from almirah kept in his dwelling house. In so far as the case of the prosecution on the point of seizure of 100 fake currency notes from the appellant is concerned, there is no evidence on record that the almirah and the dwelling house was in exclusive possession of the appellant. As such, they pray that the appellants be acquitted of the charges. In the alternative, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to show some leniency towards the appellant- Shobnath has served more than 2½ years of jail sentence and the appellant-Raju @ Ranjeet Kashyap has served jail sentence of about 1 year and 4 months, and their sentences be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the convict/ appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph. There is ample evidence on record to hold the appellants guilty of the offence. The order passed by the learned trial Court being just and proper needs no interference and the appeal filed by the convict/appellant deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11.The complainant Kumari Sarita Kenwat (P.W.-1) deposed that she worked as a domestic help and labourer for accused Raju @ Ranjeet, 7 whose wife was not residing with him. On the date of the incident, she visited the accused's house to collect her wages. Although she stated in her examination-in-chief that she was paid Rs.1,400, her written complaint (Ex.P-1) and her admission in paragraph 22 of cross- examination establish that she had actually received Rs. 1,000 in ten currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination, indicating that the reference to Rs.1,400 was a bona fide mistake. She used one Rs.100 note to purchase groceries from Sushil's shop. Later, Sushil informed her that when he tendered the same note at a petrol pump in Manendragarh, it was found to be counterfeit, and advised her to lodge a police report against the person who had paid her the notes. Thereafter, she produced the remaining notes before the police and submitted a written report (Ex. P-1), pursuant to which the spot map (Ex. P-2), seizure memo of ten Rs. 100 notes (Ex. P-3), and identification memorandum (Ex. P-4) were prepared. She further stated that accused Shobhnath Toppo frequently visited Raju @ Ranjeet and used to supply him with a large number of currency notes. During cross-examination, she admitted having stated before the police that all the notes bore the same serial number. In paragraph 24 of her cross-examination, she clarified that she had not personally seen Sushil take the Rs.100 note to the petrol pump and, therefore, could not say whether it was the same note; however, she consistently maintained that Sushil later informed her that the note given by her had been declared counterfeit. 12.During cross-examination, Sarita Kenwat (P.W.-1) admitted that she did not remember the serial numbers of the counterfeit Rs.100 denomination notes allegedly given by accused Raju @ Ranjeet. This admission appears natural, as an ordinary person cannot be expected to remember the serial numbers of currency notes. In her detailed cross-examination 8 from paragraph 35 onwards, she consistently narrates the sequence of events without any material contradiction and denied the suggestion that the notes produced before the police had been given to her by Sushil. She also admitted that the name of accused Shobhnath Toppo was not mentioned in her written complaint (Ex. P-1). This omission is not material, as the prosecution case itself is that the involvement of Shobhnath Toppo came to light subsequently on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Raju @ Ranjeet. Since Sarita had no direct dealings with Shobhnath Toppo and her interaction was confined to accused Raju @ Ranjeet, with whom she worked, the omission to mention Shobhnath Toppo in the FIR does not affect her credibility. 13.Sushil (P.W.-2) deposed that in 2019 he was running a grocery shop in front of his house at Ward No. 3, Jhagarakhand, and admitted that he knew complainant Sarita Kenwat. Although he did not give a clear answer as to whether he had taken the Rs. 100 note received from Sarita to the petrol pump and denied the remaining prosecution story, in paragraph 11 of his deposition he unequivocally admitted that he had written the complaint (Ex. P-1) on behalf of Sarita Kenwat. This admission establishes that he was aware of the contents of the complaint. Whether he wrote it at the instance of the Station House Officer or on the instructions of Sarita Kenwat is immaterial; the undisputed fact remains that Ex. P-1 was authored by him in his own handwriting. Therefore, his subsequent denial of the prosecution case does not, by itself, render the testimony of complainant Sarita Kenwat unreliable. 9 14.Sushil (PW-2) deposed that he was a laboratory technician. He stated that on 16.09.2019 the police came to Jhagarakhand along with Sarita Kenwat and asked him to write the written complaint, explaining that Sarita was illiterate and that a complaint written by the police would not be acceptable. Accordingly, he wrote the application as instructed. He also admitted that, by village relationship, Sarita addressed him as her "Mama" (maternal uncle). Despite these admissions, he denied the remaining contents of the complaint authored by him. Such conduct indicates that he deliberately withheld the true facts from the Court. Since he admittedly knew Sarita Kenwat, authored the written complaint (Ex. P-1), and acknowledged that it was in his own handwriting, it is reasonable to infer that he was aware of its contents. Therefore, his subsequent attempt to resile from the prosecution case does not create such a doubt as would undermine the prosecution version or render the testimony of complainant Sarita Kenwat unreliable. 15.Inspector Devendra Devangan (P.W.-12) deposed that he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Jhagarakhand, District Korea, from September 2018 to October 2019. On 16.09.2019, complainant Kumari Sarita Kenwat submitted a written complaint (Ex. P-1) alleging that accused Raju @ Ranjeet had paid her wages of Rs. 1,000 in ten counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination, all bearing the same serial number. On the basis of the complaint, he registered Crime No. 124/2019 under Section 489-B IPC (Ex. P-22), forwarded the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, and obtained acknowledgment (Ex. P-22A). On the same day, he issued a notice to the complainant (Ex. P-23) directing her to produce the currency notes, conducted a spot inspection, and prepared the spot map (Ex. P-2). He seized ten Rs.100 denomination notes, all bearing the identical serial 10 number 3WN805048, under seizure memo (Ex. P-3), and thereafter prepared the identification memorandum (Ex. P-4) after getting the notes identified by Sushil Kumar and Rajesh Pandey. The witness further stated that, for verification of the seized notes, he sent a requisition to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khongapani Branch (Ex. P-11). After examination, the Branch Manager returned the notes in a sealed brown envelope through Constable Lalit Yadav, which he seized under seizure memo (Ex. P-15). During cross-examination, he denied the suggestions that the FIR had not been forwarded to the Court or that Sarita Kenwat had not mentioned the serial number of the currency notes in her statement. His testimony remained consistent and duly supports the investigation conducted by him. 16.Rajesh Pandey (P.W.-8) admitted that the police had obtained his signatures on the seizure memo (Ex. P-3) and the identification memorandum (Ex. P-4), but claimed that he had signed blank papers. During cross-examination by the prosecution, however, he conceded that he was aware that one should not sign blank papers. 17.Head Constable No. 66, Lalit Yadav (P.W.-10), corroborated the testimony of Investigating Officer Devendra Devangan (P.W.-12). He deposed that on 16.09.2019, while posted at Police Station Jhagarakhand, he collected from the State Bank of India, Khongapani Branch, a sealed brown envelope containing ten counterfeit Rs. 100 denomination currency notes and delivered it to the Investigating Officer, who seized it under seizure memo (Ex. P-15). During cross-examination, he admitted that the envelope had not been sealed in his presence but denied the suggestion that he was unaware of its contents. He clarified that the bank officials had placed the currency notes in the envelope and 11 that these were the same notes which had been forwarded by the Investigating Officer to the Branch Manager for examination pursuant to the requisition (Ex. P-11). His testimony lends assurance to the prosecution case regarding the safe custody and transmission of the seized currency notes. After the seizure of the ten Rs. 100 denomination currency notes, the Investigating Officer forwarded them to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khongapani Branch, for examination under requisition (Ex. P-11). Arun Avinash Minj (P.W.-5) deposed that while serving as Branch Manager from June 2018 to June 2021, he received, on 16.09.2019, a sealed packet containing ten Rs. 100 denomination notes, all bearing the identical serial number 3WN805048. After opening the sealed packet, he examined the notes with the aid of a currency verification machine and found them, prima facie, to be counterfeit. He thereafter resealed the notes and handed them over to the police constable along with his examination report (Ex. P-12), which bears his signatures and the official seal of the bank. 18.During cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was not a forensic expert in counterfeit currency detection. However, he clarified that, as Branch Manager, he routinely examined suspected counterfeit notes using an ultraviolet lamp and other verification methods prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India, and regularly received RBI guidelines for identifying counterfeit currency. He also denied the suggestion that the notes had been produced before him in an unsealed condition. His testimony establishes that the seized notes, allegedly paid by accused Raju @ Ranjeet to Sarita Kenwat as wages, were found by the bank to be prima facie counterfeit. 12 19.The sealed envelope containing the ten Rs. 100 denomination currency notes, which Head Constable Lalit Kumar Yadav (P.W.-10) brought from the State Bank of India after examination of the notes, was seized by the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Devendra Devangan (P.W.-12), under seizure memo (Ex. P-15) in the presence of Head Constable Shambhunath Yadav (P.W.-7) and Head Constable Danish Sheikh (P.W.-9). Both attesting witnesses have duly corroborated the seizure proceedings, thereby lending assurance to the prosecution case regarding the safe custody and continuity of possession of the seized counterfeit currency notes. 20.After the initial investigation by Devendra Devangan (P.W.-12), the case was transferred to Sub-Inspector Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11), who continued the investigation upon his posting at Police Station Jhagarakhand from November 2019 to June 2020. He deposed that, after receiving the case diary, he apprehended accused Raju @ Ranjeet on 07.12.2019 and recorded his memorandum statement (Ex. P-6) in the presence of witnesses. According to the memorandum, the accused disclosed that co-accused Shobhnath Toppo had paid him Rs.10,000 for establishing an idli-dosa stall at his hotel. Out of this amount, he had paid Rs. 1,000 to Sarita Kenwat towards wages. After Sarita informed him that the notes were counterfeit, he checked the remaining currency notes and found that thirteen Rs. 100 denomination notes were also counterfeit. He further disclosed that these thirteen notes had been concealed in a cupboard at his house. Acting on the information furnished by the accused, the Investigating Officer recovered thirteen Rs.100 denomination currency notes from the cupboard in the accused's house on 07.12.2019. All the notes bore the identical serial number 3WN805048. The notes were seized under seizure memo (Ex. P-8), 13 which bears the signatures of both the Investigating Officer and the accused. Thereafter, the accused was formally arrested under arrest memo (Ex. P-10), and intimation of his arrest was given to his wife, Rashmi Kashyap. The recovery pursuant to the memorandum statement constitutes a significant incriminating circumstance against the accused. 21.Sub-Inspector Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11) further deposed that, as accused, Shobhnath Toppo was already in judicial custody in another case, he moved an application (Ex. P-17) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, on 27.12.2019 seeking permission to arrest him in the present case. Pursuant to the permission granted, he arrested Shobhnath Toppo under arrest memo (Ex. P-18) in the presence of witnesses and informed his mother, Hanari Toppo, of the arrest through intimation memo (Ex. P-19). The witness further stated that on 31.12.2019, while in police custody, accused Shobhnath Toppo was interrogated and his memorandum statement (Ex. P-7) was recorded. According to the disclosure made by the accused, he had met one Ajay Patel at Anuppur Railway Station, who claimed to deal in counterfeit currency and offered to supply Rs. 1,00,000 in counterfeit notes in exchange for Rs. 20,000 in genuine currency. Lured by the offer, Shobhnath allegedly paid Rs. 5,000 in genuine currency and, in return, received counterfeit currency notes worth Rs. 20,000, all in Rs.100 denomination. He further disclosed that, out of this amount, he had given Rs. 10,000 to Raju Kashyap, which included counterfeit notes worth Rs. 2,300 mixed with genuine currency. After learning that a criminal case had been registered against Raju Kashyap, he threw away some of the counterfeit notes and concealed the remaining counterfeit currency worth Rs. 10,000 in the cupboard of his house. 14 22.Acting on the disclosure made by accused Shobhnath Toppo, the Investigating Officer took him to his house on 31.12.2019, where the accused produced the concealed currency notes from a cupboard. The Investigating Officer seized the recovered notes under seizure memo (Ex. P-9), comprising: (i) 96 currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination, all bearing the identical serial number 9LM554703; (ii) 2 currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination, both bearing the identical serial number 3WN805048; (iii) one Rs. 100 denomination note bearing serial number OKS340135; and (iv) one Rs. 100 denomination note bearing serial number 2FL988754. 23.During his cross-examination on 26.09.2025, Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11) was questioned as to where accused Shobhnath Toppo had remained between his formal arrest on 27.12.2019 and the recording of his memorandum statement on 31.12.2019, to which the witness replied that he did not remember. However, during his further examination and cross-examination on 24.02.2026, he clarified that after formally arresting Shobhnath on 27.12.2019, he had moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chirmiri, on 30.12.2019 seeking a production warrant and one day's police custody for the purpose of interrogation and recording the accused's memorandum statement. The Court allowed the application and granted police custody from 30.12.2019 to 31.12.2019. Pursuant to the said order, the accused was interrogated on 31.12.2019 in the presence of witnesses, his memorandum statement (Ex. P-7) was recorded, and the recovery and seizure of the currency notes were effected under seizure memo (Ex. P- 9). This explanation satisfactorily clarifies the circumstances in which the memorandum statement and consequential recovery were made. 15 24.The testimony of Investigating Officer Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11) satisfactorily explains the period between the formal arrest of accused Shobhnath Toppo on 27.12.2019 and the recording of his memorandum statement on 31.12.2019. It is evident that during this period the accused remained in judicial custody in another criminal case. Only after obtaining one day's police custody pursuant to the order of the competent Court did the Investigating Officer interrogate the accused, record his memorandum statement (Ex. P-7), and effect the recovery and seizure of the currency notes under seizure memo (Ex. P-9). 25.In paragraph 19 of his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer clarified that the documents relating to the grant of police custody were part of the case record, a fact which stands verified from the record of the case. The record further shows that the application filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling the Investigating Officer was allowed on 13.02.2026, pursuant to which he was recalled and his additional evidence was recorded on 24.02.2026 to clarify this aspect. The Investigating Officer also explained that accused Shobhnath Toppo had already been arrested and was in judicial custody in Crime No. 160/2019 registered at Police Station Manendragarh under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC. Consequently, it was necessary to obtain permission from the Court through application (Ex. P-17) before effecting his arrest in the present case. These circumstances clearly establish that the accused was never kept in illegal custody and that the memorandum statement and the consequential recovery were recorded in accordance with law. 26.Doodhnath (PW-3) and Jai Kumar Rahi (PW-4), who were cited as witnesses to the memorandum statements (Ex. P-6 and P-7) and the 16 seizure memos (Exs. P-8 and P-9), did not support the prosecution. Both denied that the police had interrogated accused Raju @ Ranjeet and Shobhnath Toppo in their presence or that any currency notes had been recovered from either accused in their presence. They also denied having witnessed the seizure of the counterfeit currency. However, the mere fact that these independent witnesses turned hostile does not, by itself, render the prosecution case doubtful. It is common experience that witnesses to recovery proceedings often sign the relevant documents at the time of investigation but subsequently resile from their earlier position during trial. Significantly, there is no material to show that Sushil Kumar (P.W.-2), Doodhnath (P.W.-3), or Jai Kumar Rahi (P.W.-4) had any prior acquaintance with the investigating officers or any animosity towards the accused which could suggest that they were deliberately chosen by the police to falsely implicate them. 27.Further, the evidence of Investigating Officer Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11) shows that he had no prior knowledge of any connection between accused Raju @ Ranjeet and Shobhnath Toppo, nor of any alleged possession of counterfeit currency by either of them. The investigation commenced solely on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by complainant Sarita Kenwat. It was only during the interrogation of accused Raju @ Ranjeet that the involvement of Shobhnath Toppo surfaced, following which the Investigating Officer recorded their memorandum statements and recovered counterfeit currency notes from their respective houses pursuant to the information furnished by them. Thus, the hostility of the independent witnesses does not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, discredit the otherwise cogent evidence of the Investigating Officer regarding the recoveries. 17 28.The recovered currency notes were not seized from an open or accessible place where anyone could have planted or accessed them. They were recovered from concealed locations in the respective houses of the accused pursuant to the information furnished by them. Therefore, the mere fact that the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution does not constitute a legally sustainable ground to discard the recovery proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer in due course of investigation. Investigating Officer Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.- 11) further deposed that, on 26.12.2019, he forwarded the thirteen Rs. 100 denomination currency notes recovered from accused Raju Kashyap to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khongapani Branch, for examination under requisition (Ex. P-13). 29.P.B. Gupta (PW-6) stated that, while serving as the officiating Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Khongapani Branch, from 23.12.2019 to 03.01.2020, he received a sealed envelope containing thirteen Rs. 100 denomination currency notes, all bearing the same serial number, along with requisition (Ex. P-13). After examining the notes with the bank's currency verification machine, he found all thirteen notes to be counterfeit. He made the necessary endorsement that the notes should not be put into circulation, affixed his signatures and the official bank seal, resealed the envelope, and returned it to the police constable along with his report. He identified his signatures on Ex. P-13 and confirmed that the report recorded all thirteen notes as counterfeit. The witness further deposed that, on 02.01.2020, he received another sealed envelope from the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Jhagarakhand, under requisition (Ex. P-14), containing 100 currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination each recovered from accused Shobhnath Toppo. Of these, 96 notes bore the identical serial number 9LM554703, 18 2 notes bore the identical serial number 3WN805048, one note bore serial number OKS340135, and one note bore serial number 2FL988754. After opening the sealed envelope and examining all the notes with the bank's currency verification machine, he found each of them to be, prima facie, forged/counterfeit. His testimony provides independent corroboration of the prosecution case regarding the counterfeit nature of the currency recovered from both accused persons. 30.P.B. Gupta (PW-6) further deposed that, in his report (Ex. P-14), he endorsed in portion A to A that all the currency notes examined by him were counterfeit. He also recorded that the notes should not be put into circulation, affixed his signatures in portion B to C, applied the official bank seal in portion D to D, and thereafter resealed the currency notes and the report in an envelope, which was handed over to the police constable. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the notes had been produced before him in an unsealed condition. He also admitted that the currency notes had not been seized from accused Raju @ Ranjeet in his presence, which is consistent with the prosecution case, as he was only required to examine the notes after they had been seized by the police. 31.The evidence on record clearly establishes two distinct recoveries. First, complainant Sarita Kenwat (P.W.-1) consistently stated that accused Raju @ Ranjeet had paid her wages in ten Rs. 100 denomination currency notes, which were later found to be counterfeit. Since those notes had already been handed over to Sarita, they were recovered from her possession and examined by Arun Avinash Minj (PW-5), who found them to be prima facie counterfeit. Secondly, during the course of investigation, the police recovered thirteen Rs.100 denomination 19 currency notes from accused Raju @ Ranjeet and one hundred Rs.100 denomination currency notes from accused Shobhnath Toppo. These recoveries were subsequently verified by P.B. Gupta (PW-6), who, through his reports (Ex. P-13 and P-14), categorically opined that all the notes produced before him appeared, prima facie, to be forged/ counterfeit. Consequently, the witness's admission that the police had not seized the notes in his presence does not in any manner detract from the evidentiary value of his examination reports or the prosecution case. 32.In a case of the present nature, the burden squarely lies upon the prosecution to establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that the currency notes seized and alleged to be counterfeit were in fact counterfeit. In discharge of this burden, Investigating Officer Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11) deposed that, for obtaining an expert opinion, he forwarded all the seized currency notes to the Currency Note Press, Dewas (Madhya Pradesh), through the Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur, vide letter dated 30.01.2020 (Ex. P-20), which was carried by Constable No. 572, Balram Kenwat. Exhibit P-20 specifically records that the articles forwarded for examination comprised ten Rs. 100 denomination notes seized from complainant Sarita Kenwat, thirteen Rs. 100 denomination notes seized from accused Raju @ Ranjeet, and one hundred Rs. 100 denomination notes seized from accused Shobhnath Toppo, along with their respective serial numbers. The Investigating Officer further proved the expert report received from the Bank Note Press, Dewas (Ex. P-21), consisting of three pages. The report states that all 123 Rs.100 denomination currency notes forwarded for examination were received in a sealed condition, examined by the experts, and found to be counterfeit. The report specifically records that the sealed packet was delivered by Constable No. 572, Balram Kenwat 20 of Police Station Jhagarakhand, District Korea, and that, after examination, the notes were resealed and returned through the same constable. The report also bears the specimen seal used during the examination. Thus, apart from the prima facie verification conducted by the officials of the State Bank of India, the prosecution has produced the opinion of the Bank Note Press, Dewas, a Government scientific institution, conclusively certifying that all the seized currency notes were counterfeit. The report (Ex. P-21), being that of a Government scientific expert within the meaning of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is admissible in evidence and can be read without examining the expert, unless the Court considers such examination necessary. Consequently, the prosecution has satisfactorily discharged its burden of proving that the currency notes seized in the present case were, in fact, counterfeit. 33.Separate questions were put to both accused during their examinations under Section 313 CrPC regarding the expert report of the Bank Note Press, Dewas (Ex. P-21). Neither accused offered any plausible explanation with respect to the report or the recovery of counterfeit currency from their possession. Accused Raju @ Ranjeet admitted that he knew complainant Sarita Kenwat and that she worked as a labourer, though he denied that she performed domestic work at his house. However, this denial stands contradicted by the testimony of his own defence witness, Sampat Kenwat (DW-1), who is the real brother of the complainant. Sampat deposed that Sarita had worked for about one month at the house of accused Raju @ Ranjeet, that Raju had paid her wages, and that when she used one of the currency notes at a grocery shop, the shopkeeper informed her that it was counterfeit and returned it to her. He further stated that Sarita thereafter lodged the report at the 21 police station. The witness also admitted that the currency note tendered by Sarita at the grocery shop had been received by her from accused Raju @ Ranjeet. Thus, the defence evidence itself materially corroborates the prosecution case and the version set out in the written complaint (Ex. P-1). The evidence on record, therefore, establishes that the investigation commenced on the basis of the complaint lodged by Sarita Kenwat. During investigation, the interrogation of accused Raju @ Ranjeet revealed the involvement of co-accused Shobhnath Toppo, leading to the recovery of thirteen counterfeit Rs. 100 denomination notes from Raju and one hundred such notes from Shobhnath. Together with the ten counterfeit notes recovered from Sarita, a total of 123 currency notes were forwarded for expert examination and were conclusively certified as counterfeit by the Bank Note Press, Dewas, under report (Ex. P-21). 34.The accused were required to furnish a satisfactory explanation as to how such a large quantity of counterfeit currency came into their possession. They failed to do so. The prosecution has proved that accused Shobhnath Toppo knowingly possessed counterfeit currency and supplied a part of it to accused Raju @ Ranjeet for circulation as genuine currency. It has further been proved that Raju @ Ranjeet knowingly retained counterfeit currency in his possession and passed ten counterfeit Rs.100 denomination notes to complainant Sarita Kenwat towards payment of her wages, thereby representing them to be genuine and inducing her to use them as genuine currency. His conduct clearly amounts to using counterfeit currency as genuine and cheating the complainant. 22 35.The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Raju @ Ranjeet knowingly possessed twenty-three counterfeit Rs.100 denomination currency notes and used ten of them as genuine by paying them to Sarita Kenwat. The prosecution has likewise established that accused Shobhnath Toppo knowingly possessed counterfeit currency, supplied twenty-three such notes to Raju @ Ranjeet, and retained one hundred counterfeit Rs.100 denomination notes with the intention that they be used as genuine. Accordingly, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against both the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and we find no error or illegality in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court against the appellants herein. 36.Coming to the question of sentence, it is pertinent to note that under Sections 420 and 489C of the IPC, the maximum punishment prescribed is imprisonment for seven years along with fine, though no minimum sentence has been prescribed. Likewise, under Section 489B of the IPC, the punishment may extend to imprisonment for life, but no minimum sentence has been stipulated. The appellant Shobnath has undergone incarceration for more than two and a half years, whereas appellant Raju @ Ranjeet Kashyap has remained in custody for about one year and four months (including 363 days during trial and the period subsequent to his conviction by the learned trial Court on 11.03.2026). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to both the appellants to the period already undergone by them. However, considering the comparatively shorter period of incarceration undergone by appellant Raju @ Ranjeet Kashyap, while maintaining the fine and default sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, we deem it 23 appropriate to enhance the fine payable by him by a further sum of Rs.10,000/-. 37.Since the appellants-Shobhnath Toppo and Raju @ Ranjeet Kashyap are stated to be in custody, they shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case, subject to deposit/ payment of the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court and the additional fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed upon appellant-Raju @ Ranjeet Kashyap by this Court, and in default of payment of the said additional fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 38.The appeals are accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 39.Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.07.16 15:25:33 +0530