JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 04.06.05, passed, in Sessions Case No. 23/2004, by the learned sessions Judge, Morigaon, arising out of GR Case No. 525/2000, convicting the accused-Appellant under Section 489B IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period often years and pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of five years. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as follows: Constable Radheshyam Bhar of 5th A.P. Bn. gave, on 16.10.2000, at about 10.30 a.m., to the then i/c, Neli Police Outpost, Sub-Inspector Thuleswar Bora, a currency note of rupees five hundred denomination and asked for change. As Sub-Inspector Thuleswar Bora suspected that the said currency note was a fake one, he made a query from Constable Radheshyam as to where he had got the said currency note from. Responding to the query, so made, Constable Radheshyam replied by saying that he had received the said currency note from Constable Abdul Sobhan Khan (i.e., the accused-Appellant), who also belonged to 5 the A.P. Bn. A search for Constable Abdul Sobhan Khan revealed that he had gone to Ajori for collecting his pay. In the meanwhile, Constables Deepak Boro, Rajkumar Singh and Phukan Tatas also informed Sub-Inspector Thuleswar Bora that they too had been given rupees five hundred denomination currency notes by Constable Sobhan Khan. All those notes were brought to the said outpost and were seized, vide seizure lists (Exhibit 4 and 5), by the said In-charge and a G.D. entry was made, in this regard. Exhibit 7(1) being the said G.D. entry. Having learnt that the accused was at Jagirod, the said In-charge proceeded towards Jagirod; but, in the meanwhile, he came to learn that Constable Sobhan Khan had delivered currency notes at a jewellery shop, namely, Assam Jewellery, too. This currency note was also seized by seizure list (Exhibit 8). The accused was, then, arrested at Jagirod. Upon apprehending the accused, a written Ejahar was formally lodged, on 17.10.2000, at the outpost and a case was accordingly registered against the accused under Sections 489A,489B and 489C IPC. During the course of investigation, the said seized currency notes were sent to the Reserve Bank of India for examination and opinion. The accused was, then, arrested at Jagirod. Upon apprehending the accused, a written Ejahar was formally lodged, on 17.10.2000, at the outpost and a case was accordingly registered against the accused under Sections 489A,489B and 489C IPC. During the course of investigation, the said seized currency notes were sent to the Reserve Bank of India for examination and opinion. A report was accordingly received from the bank, Exhibit 9 being the said report, wherein it was opined that the seized currency notes were fake ones. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against Constable Sobhan Khan and two others under Sections 489A, 489B and 489 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-appellant was the lone person to face the trial as the remaining two accused had absconded. 3. During trial, the accused-Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The accused-Appellant was, then, examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. In his examination aforementioned, the accused-Appellant denied that he had committed the offences alleged to have committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On finding the accused-Appellant guilty of the offence under Section 489B IPC, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed the sentence against him as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-Appellant, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 5. Since the prosecution's case commences with the production of the alleged currency note by Constable Radheshyam (P.W. 4) before Sub-Inspector Thuleswar Bora, i/c, Neli outpost (P.W. 7), it is appropriate that the evidence of P.W. 4 be first taken into account. According to the evidence of this witness (P.W. 4), the accused-Appellant was one of the constables in 5th A.P. Bn. According to the evidence of this witness (P.W. 4), the accused-Appellant was one of the constables in 5th A.P. Bn. It is in the evidence of this witness that whenever they went home and they were in need of money, they often used to borrow money from other fellow constables and as he (P.W. 4) was to visit home, he had borrowed one thousand rupees from the accused-Appellant, the loan of one thousand rupees being in the form of two currency notes of rupees five hundred denomination each and he (P.W. 4) carried the said notes to their in-charge (P.W. 7) to get the notes changed in small currency notes, but, when he delivered the note to P.W. 7, P.W. 7 questioned him (P.W. 4) as to where he had got the note from, whereupon he (P.W. 4) replied that he had received the said note from Constable Sobhan Khan and that such currency notes had been given, in his (P.W. 4) presence, by the accused to another Constable, namely, Deepak Boro. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 4 that the currency note, produced him before the said In-charge, was seized by a seizure list, which is Exhibit 5. 6. Close on the heels of the evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 1 (Constable M.N. Ali) has deposed that on 16.10.2000, P.W. 4 went to market to purchase articles and when he delivered, at the Bazaar, a currency note of rupees five hundred denomination, the shopkeeper told P.W. 4 that the said currency note was a fake one, whereupon P.W. 4 took the note to their In-charge (P.W. 7) and it is then that P.W. 7 told them that it was a fake currency note and asked them as to where they had received the said currency note from. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1 that P.W. 4 replied to P.W. 7 by saying that it was Abdul Sobhan Khan, who had given him the said currency was a fake one, whereupon P.W. 4 took the note to their In-charge (P.W. 7) and it is then that P.W. 7 told them that it was a fake currency note and asked them as to where they had received the said currency note from. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1 that P.W. 4 replied to P.W. 7 by saying that it was Abdul Sobhan Khan, who had given him the said currency note. 7. It is clear that there is inherent contradiction between the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 as to how they happened to reach P.W. 7 and handed over the said currency note to P.W. 7. While P.W. 4 asserts that he (P.W. 4) went to P.W. 7 to exchange the note, P.W. 5 claims that P.W. 4 had already been told by a shopkeeper at the market that the note was a fake one. 8. Be that as it may, let me, for a moment, assume that the said currency note, which P.W. 4 gave to P.W. 7, was given by the accused-Appellant. Let me, now, proceed to scan the remaining evidence on record. P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 are two more persons, who claimed to have borrowed money in the form of rupees five hundred denomination currency notes, from the accused-Appellant and as far as P.W. 3 is concerned, he claims that the accused appellant had exchanged with him three numbers of currency notes of rupees five hundred denomination each. These pieces of evidence point, at the most, to the fact that P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 had received the said currency notes from the accused-Appellant. As far as PW6 is concerned, his evidence is not of much relevance, because his evidence is merely to the effect that the accused-Appellant had made some calls from his (this witness's) PCO. 9. When I turn to the evidence of the i/c, Neli Police Outpost, who is also the Investigating Officer of this case, what I notice is that according to him, on 16.10.2000, at about 10.30 a.m., P.W. 4 came to him With a rupees five hundred denomination currency note and asked for change and as he (P.W. 7) suspected that the said note was a fake one, he (P.W. 7) made query from P.W. 4 and came to learn that the said currency note had been given to P.W. 4 by the accused-Appellant and further queries, made in this regard, revealed that a few currency notes had been given to some other constables of the 5th A.P. Bn. by the accused-Appellant, whereupon he (P.W. 7) seized those currency notes, arrested the accused and sent the seized notes to the Reserve Bank of India for their opinion and the Reserve Bank of India gave a report (Exhibit 9), which states that in the opinion of the bank, the seized notes were fake ones. 10. It is submitted, at the time of hearing of the present appeal, by Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, that there is no cogent, definite and admissible evidence showing that the said currency notes were fake ones inasmuch as the report, in question, could not have been admitted into evidence without the person, who had given the opinion from the Reserve Bank of India, having been examined as a witness. 11. While considering the above aspect of the case, it needs to be noted that Sections 292, 293 and294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure make admissible, in evidence, a document, even if the officer, who has given the report, is not called and examined as a witness at the trial. Section 292 applies only in the case of Gazetted officers of the mint or of the Indian Security Press and to none others. The opinion, given by an officer of the Reserve Bank of India, does not fall within the exceptions embodied in Section 292 meaning thereby that in order to prove the contents of a report, examination of the officer of the Reserve Bank of India, who may have given opinion on the genuineness or otherwise of a currency note, is imperative and cannot be dispensed with. In other words, without examining the officer of the Reserve Bank of India, who gives a report with regard to the question as to whether a currency note is or is not a fake one, the contents of the report cannot be made a part of the evidence on record. So far as Section 293 Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, this Section makes reports of certain government scientific experts admissible in trial without the person, who has given the report having been called as witness. For a better perspective, Sections 292,293 and 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are reproduced below: 292. So far as Section 293 Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, this Section makes reports of certain government scientific experts admissible in trial without the person, who has given the report having been called as witness. For a better perspective, Sections 292,293 and 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are reproduced below: 292. Evidence of officers of the Mint- (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any such gazetted officer of the Mint or of the India Security Press (including the office of the Controller of Stamps and Stationery) as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, although such officer is not called as a witness. (2) The Court may, if it thins fit, summon and examine any such officer as to the subject-matter of his report. Provided that no such officer shall be summoned to produce any records on which the report is based. (3) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sections 123 and124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), no such officer shall, except with the permission of the Master of the mint or the India Security Press or the Controller of Stamps and Stationery, as the case may be, be permitted- (a) to give any evidence derived from any unpublished official records on which the report is based; or (b) to disclose the nature or particulars of any test applied by him in the course of the examination of the matter or thing. 293. Reports of certain Government scientific exports.- (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report. (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report. (3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf. (4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely: (a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government; (b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives; (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau; (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; (e) the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory; (f) the Serologist to the Government. 294. No formal proof of certain documents- (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such from as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. 12. From what has been observed above, it is clear that in the case at hand, the contents of the report (Exhibit 9) were not admissible in evidence. There was, thus, no expert's opinion available before the learned trial Court to hold that the said seized currency notes were fake ones. As far as P.W. 7 is concerned, he is, admittedly, not an expert and it is for this reason that he wanted to ascertain as to how far his suspicion, that the seized currency notes were fake ones, was correct. As far as P.W. 7 is concerned, he is, admittedly, not an expert and it is for this reason that he wanted to ascertain as to how far his suspicion, that the seized currency notes were fake ones, was correct. As far as the remaining witnesses are concerned, they are neither experts nor have they any personal knowledge as regards the genuineness or other wise of the said seized notes. In fact, P.W. 7 did not even claim that the seized notes were fake ones, for, he had seized the said notes on the basis of his suspicion. 13. The question, therefore, which remains unanswered by the prosecution is as to whether the currency notes, which were alleged to be fake ones, were really fake or not. 14. What is, however, of greatest significant to note, in the present appeal, is that in our criminal jurisprudence, the burden to prove the charge against an accused beyond all reasonable doubt rests entirely on the prosecution. The falsity of the defence case cannot be used as a substitute for proof of the ingredients of the offence with which an accused is charged. In the case at hand, even if, for a moment, it is assumed that the allegedly seized currency notes belonged to, and were in possession of, the accused-Appellant, the fact still remains that it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that these notes were fake. 15. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that Exhibit 9, which is the report received by the Investigating Officer from the Reserve Bank of India in respect of the seized currency notes is admissible evidence to the extent that such a report had been received by this witness; but the contents of Exhibit 9 and/or the data given therein and/or the opinion expressed therein were not admissible in evidence. There was, thus, no evidence in proof of the fact that the said seized currency notes were fake ones. 16. In the case at hand, in the face of what have been pointed out above, there can be no escape from the conclusion that there was no conclusive and convincing evidence, far less proof, that the said currency notes were fake ones. 16. In the case at hand, in the face of what have been pointed out above, there can be no escape from the conclusion that there was no conclusive and convincing evidence, far less proof, that the said currency notes were fake ones. At any rate, in the face of the facts, as emerged from the evidence on record and the law relevant thereto, learned trial Court ought to have accorded, at least, benefit of doubt to the accused-Appellant. 17. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order are hereby set aside. The accused-Appellant is held not guilty of the charge framed against him under Section 489B IPC and acquitted accordingly under the benefit of doubt. 18. Let the accused-Appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case. 19. Send back the LCRs. Appeal allowed