Boleram Reang @ Mandinapha vs Hobendra Reang @ Jusminafa And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.

[2] The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in connection with case No. ST/T-1/29/2017, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted under Section-489 C of IPC and thereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-(five thousand) each with default stipulation.

[2] The brief facts and the background of the prosecution case as noted by the learned trial court are as follows:

"2. The prosecution case, in short, is that one SI, Harendra Debbarma lodged a suo-motu complaint to the O/C, Damcherra P.S to the effect that on 19.06.2016 at 20.25 hours he received an information from reliable source that some miscreants coming from Panisagar side towards Damcherra carrying some illicit goods like fake Indian currency notes and then he along with police staffs laid an ambush and found that the accused persons coming and seeing the police party they tried to flee away but ultimately they apprehend the accused persons and on search Indian fake currency of Rs. 55,000/- was found from Boleram Reang and Indian fake currency of Rs. 45,000/- was found from Habendra Reang.

Basing on the complaint O/C, Damcherra P.S. registered Damcherra P.S. case No. 2016 DMC 012 under Section 489(c)/34 of IPC and endorsed the case to SI, Harendra Debbarma for investigation and on the completion of investigation the I/O submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 120(B)/489(B)/489(C) of IPC and under Section-16(1) (b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

On receipt of the charge sheet the case was committed to this Court. On commitment of the case to this Court the charge was framed under Section-489(C) read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand the trial.

In total 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and also proved exhibited the material documents including the seizure list and the report Ext. 8 of TSFSL to prove the charge against the accused persons.

At the closer of the prosecution evidence accused persons were examined under Section-313 (a) (i) of the Cr. P.C and in their turn they declined to adduce any evidence. Their case was that of denial of the prosecution case and nothing else. However, they have led no defence evidence against their plea or denial of prosecution case. The accused persons were examined under Section-313 of Cr. P.C."

[3] Learned counsel appearing for the parties have not raised any dispute about the facts and background of the case as stated above. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is serious discrepancy in the seizure of the currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination and there is no mens rea as is required. None of the ingredients of Section-489(C) are complied with.

[4] Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the deposition of PW-8, Sri Subhasish Choudhury, Senior Scientific Officer posted at Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory, Narsingarh. I have noted the relevant portion of his depositions which are as under:

"I received documents from Office of the Director through forwarding. He simply forwarded the packet mentioning the division where the documents and other articles be examined. At present I am not in a position to say in which position I received the packed. My report did not contain the dispatch number. But, my report shows that I examined some currency notes of 1000/-denomination which were marked as A-1 to A-55 and B-1 to B- 45. My report does not shows that whether I mark the numbers A-1 to A-55 and B-1 to B-45. I also cannot say the series number along with numbers of each note. Except A-28 all the notes of A- 1 to A-55 and B-1 to B-45 are present today in the Court."

[5] In view of the aforesaid statement made by PW-8, I find force in the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants. I have perused the relevant evidence as surfaced from the relevant witnesses.

[6] PW-9, Sri Prava Ranjan Debbarma, is the Investigating Officer who submitted the charge-sheet. He has stated in his deposition that "I admit that during investigation it is not established that whether the accused persons used any of the currency notes which were forged, as genuine to anybody so as to attract Section-489(B) and even then, since sanction was accorded by the Home Department I submitted charge sheet under Sections-489(C)/489(B) and Section-16 (i) (b) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. I admit that in this case Section-15 of the Unlawful Act is not established against any of the accused persons in order to attract punishment under Section-16 of the said Act and even then I added that section in the charge sheet without any just reasons and in this regard, I have no explanation."

[7] To attract Section-489C of IPC, the following ingredients are to be fulfilled:

(a) The notes in question either currency notes or bank notes;

(b) Such notes were forged or counterfeited;

(c) Accused was in possession of such notes;

(d) Accused knew or had reason to believe that such notes were forged or counterfeited; and

(e) He intended to use the same as genuine.

[8] Thus, to establish the offence under Section 489(C), all the aforesaid ingredients are to be fulfilled. In this case, there is no evidence that the accused persons i.e. the appellants herein, were possessing the said notes knowing fully that the notes were fake or forged. The investigation was also not directed to find out the source of those notes. Moreover, from the evidence as surfaced from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it has not been established that the appellants had intention to use those notes as genuine.

[9] Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent has tried to persuade this Court that there is no dispute that these notes of 100/- denomination and 1000/- denomination were seized from the possession of the appellants and on the basis of this submission, he has tried to justify the conviction as returned by the learned trial Judg. I find no force in the submission of the learned Addl. P.P. for the State-respondent.

[10] On overall assessment of the evidences on record, it has come to light that there was serious flaw in seizing the currency notes and that also revealed from the deposition of PW-8 too, the Sr. Scientific Officer of TSFSL. Moreover, the ingredients of Section-489(C) of IPC are found to be absent. It has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were possessing the notes knowingfully that those currency notes were fake or counterfeited or forged and further, that they had intended to use those notes to anyone as genuine. There is absolutely no evidence except the possession of the counterfeited fake currency by the accused persons.

[11] Having observed thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction & sentence dated 27.02.2019 passed in ST/T-1/29/2017 as recorded by the learned trial Judge is set aside and quashed. The instant appeal preferred by the appellants, namely, Boleram Reang @ Mandinapha and Hobendra Reang @ Jusminafa stands allowed. Both the appellants are set at liberty. They are discharged from their liabilities of bail bonds and their sureties are also discharged.

[12] In that view of the matter, the instant appeal stands allowed and thus, disposed of.