SRI. A\IBA\TA S (JS: W\CAPPA YIETC C ID. ACBI3 ABULJ DCC.: ADRICELTERE v. State of West Bengal

through his learned counsel that the judgment of the Court below cannot be sustained in law. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant, Sri Jagadish Patil is that the complainant himself has turned hostile and the two panchas were found dead, and therefore, there was no evidence of the police officials. The Trial Court did not have convicted the appellant because thcrc is no evidence indicating that accused had the knowledge to believe that they were using counterfeit notes as genuine notes. Moreover, no question was put to the appellant in 313 statement with regard to the appellants knowledge either to believe that he vtts in -I possession of counterfeit notes knowing them to be fake notes and had intended to usc them as genuine notes. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2001 rLL.J. 4696 and that the Calcutta High Court reported in 2007 CrLL.J 4577. learned counsel argued that no specific question was put to the appellant with regard to he having the knowledge of the notes in his possession being counterfeit notes. no conviction can lie against the appellant either under Section 489B or 489C of I.P.C. Therefore, the appeal be allowed by acquitting the appellant.

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader argued ilTat the judgment of the Court below calls for no interference because even though the panchas were found dead there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officers and as many as 557 fake notes were recovered from the accused No.2 and though P.W.4 the 6 nps nthadtrnedl stict’it a 1 t i ni itic ;i F It h,zht of aforc s ud c ontc ntiot s put f ra it 1, thc point that irises for ‘v eonsident on is Whcthcr thc cmicnor cfthc appcllant suitarned in On p1w rcidng oi c tion 48)A ad C PC uiould go to shov. that the pcrson h sells bu)s r r ci cs i ‘ncr r, an curicr&i tc ist ha nc; dp )rl’esont x r f e u.n ircpc ctcr4 Kt s q 1 S Stat 7 (‘hattnqa It 200 (malwakr without the meits reci being made out, no offence under Section 489B of I.P.C. ran be said to have been made out. S. In oilier words, the Apex Court tvent on to observe that when no specific question was put to the accused with regard to the currency notes being fake notes, the offences under Sections 489B & C cannot be said to have been proved, is the case ol’ Roney Dubey v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2007 CrLL.J. 4577, it has been held by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that while nothing is there to show that Lhc accused had tlw requisite knowledge that notes Ibund from his possession were fake notes nor anything is there to show that he intended to use them, conviction under Section 489C will not be proper.

If the aforesaid decisions are applied to the case on hand, so far as using the fake notes as genuine notes by this appellant is concerned, the important witness prosecution is the eomplainani. P.W.4 Ramesh and he has 8 I [pr t s A! i • 1 ( It( 17• Icti fik o, tsd, tenc t i al n I t 1k zyptlbnt th t lit fl)I ic F c l.a tic u C IC) ;fto th Ic Ic I ( t c l-’tt 1 Icc ac ccz ( 1: I 1• I Is C C F 1i •4 LUS’— )4 g)11JC I )(iT( )_1j( ‘1 )Cf’%‘ q. 43144t•.YS)UIJTJ•1L4(I.pdltn )fl1P4’ puocipvqqj P;1‘U)pt1PIT SIP’ ii’ eLifTiwqrupt’r Ut’,