JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr PC, is directed against the judgment & order of conviction and sentence, dated 13.02.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura in Sessions trial No. 88(NT/K) 2006. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused appellant, Farid Khan guilty for committing offence, punishable under Section 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC and sentenced him under Section 489(B) of I.P.C. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, in default of payment, suffer further imprisonment 6(six) months and again under Section 489(C) of IPC, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment, suffer further imprisonment for 6(six) months. We have heard learned Senior counsel, Mr. A K Bhowmik, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. S R Dey. for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. D Sarkar, assisted by learned Advocate, Mr. R C Debnath, for the State-respondents. We have meticulously gone through the evidence and materials available on record and the impugned judgment, passed by the learned Court below. 2. In a short compass, prosecution case is that, on 27.1.2005, at about 22.05 hrs, a telephonic information was received at Kailashahar PS from secret source that some unknown persons, carrying huge numbers of forged Indian currency notes, were staying at Nirmala Hotel, Kailashahar and that information was entered in GD entry No. 1725, dated 27.01.2005 of Kailashahar PS and the Officer-in-Charge of the PS directed S.I., Sri Jayanta Kr. Dey and Special Branch (SB) staff to verify the said information. Accordingly, SI, Sri Dey with his SB staff immediately rushed to Nirmala hotel, at a distance of about half kilometer from PS and on search from room No. 108 detained accused-appellant, Farid Khan, recovered a 500 rupee counterfeit note and seized the same by preparing seizure list in presence of witnesses. SI Sri Dey interrogated accused, Farid Khan and based on his statement, on that very night, he rushed to village Kubjhar and at about 23.04 hrs. detained another person, Md. Churuk Miah and on search, from his custody, recovered 60 numbers of fake currency notes, each of Rs. 500/- denomination and seized the same by preparing the seizure list. SI Sri Dey interrogated accused, Farid Khan and based on his statement, on that very night, he rushed to village Kubjhar and at about 23.04 hrs. detained another person, Md. Churuk Miah and on search, from his custody, recovered 60 numbers of fake currency notes, each of Rs. 500/- denomination and seized the same by preparing the seizure list. Thereafter also, SI Sri Dey along with other police personnel searched many other places namely, Kailashahar town, Kubjhar, Safrikandi etc. to recover more forged currency notes but there was no more recovery. On the following day i.e. on 28.01.2005, at about 13.05 hrs., SI, Sri Dey lodged a suo-motu FIR, in writing, with the O.C., Kailashahar Police Station and accordingly, OC of said P.S. registered Kailashahar PS Case No. 15/2005 under Section 489(A), read with Section 34 of IPC and entrusted the charge of investigation of the case on the informant i.e. S.I., Sri Jayanta Kr. Dey, who, accordingly, took up investigation of the case. 3. On 28.01.2005, on the basis of an information from Babur Bazar, that a person namely, Sanjay Das, has been detained by local people with a fake 500 rupee denomination currency note, SI. Sri Dey, reached there and at about 20-30 hrs., seized a 500 rupee denomination fake currency note and arrested the accused, Sanjay Das, in connection with the same case. 4. In course of investigation S.I. Sri Dey, examined material witnesses, recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr PC and arranged examination of the seized counterfeit/fake currency notes. While the investigation was in substantial progress, on 14.02.2005, one Deputy SP, CID was entrusted with the charge of investigation of the case by the superior authority of the police and he re-examined the witnesses and also interrogated the accused persons, arranged examination of the seized counterfeit currency notes by the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory and obtained report that those seized currency notes were counterfeit notes and thereafter, submitted charge sheet against the arrested accused persons, Farid Khan, Churuk Miah and Sanjay Das for commission of offence, punishable under Section 489(B) and 489(C)read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. 5. On commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, cognizance was taken and trial was taken up in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura, who, in due course, framed separate charges against the accused persons, Farid Khan, Churuk Miah and Sanjay Das, for commission of offence under Section 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC to which, the respective accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charge framed against the accused appellant, Farid Khan runs as follows: CHARGE I, Shri N.k. Sinha, Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, do hereby charge you namely, Md. Farid Khan as follows :-- Firstly, that on 27.01.2005 at about 10 p.m. at Nirmala Hotel, Kailashahar, you got/received/trafficks/forged or counterfeit currency note (one 500 rupee note to wit 500/- rupee note knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 489(8) of I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly, that you on the same date, time and place had in your possession forged or counterfeit currency note to wit one 500/- rupee note knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 489(C) of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge by this Court. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that accused Churuk Miah died on 22.12.2006 while the trial was going on. The other accused, Sanjay Das, was acquitted from the charge, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and that has not been challenged. 7. Learned Senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik, drawing our attention to the evidence on record has submitted that except the oral evidence of PW 9, the informant, i.e. I.O. of the case, there is no other evidence on record that a 500 rupee counterfeit currency note was recovered from the possession of the convict, Farid Khan, and therefore, the convict is liable to be acquitted from the charge levelled against him. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has made a futile exercise of discussing various case laws though there is no evidence on record to apply the ratio of those decisions and that the judgment, based on no evidence at all to apply the ratio of any of those decisions. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Sarkar, has submitted that PWs 1 and 2 are the star witnesses of the prosecution and in their presence, counterfeit currency notes were recovered but they turned hostile. PW 5 is the owner of the hotel, wherefrom the appellant was arrested and a counterfeit currency note was seized, who also turned hostile. The previous statements of those witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. have been proved as Ext. Nos. 3, 6 and 7 respectively. He has further submitted that PW 9, who is the informant as well as the I.O. of the case, made categorical statement regarding the recovery of the fake currency note from the possession of the convict and that has not been shaken in any manner and the unshaken testimony of PW 9 is supported by Ext. Nos. 3, 6 and 7. Therefore, the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidences and convicted the accused appellant, accordingly. 9. To prove the charges, so far framed separately, against the 3(three) accused persons, a single set of witnesses were examined by the prosecution namely, (1) Rana Yadav, (2) Sujit Sukla Baidya, (3) Iswar Debbarma, (4) Niranjan Majumder, (5) Mintu Chowdhury, (6) Priya Ranjan Saha, (7) Apangshu Datta, (8) Sundar Ali, (9) Jayanta Kr. Dey, (10) Answar Ali and (11) Amarjit Debbarma respectively. 10. Out of the above witnesses, PW 9 is the informant and also the first I.O. of the case. PWs 1 and 2 are the witnesses to the seizure of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of the accused appellant, Farid Khan as well as from the possession of the accused Churuk Miah. Both of them were declared hostile by the prosecution and they have stated nothing incriminating against either of the accused persons. PW 5 is the owner of Nirmala hotel, Kailashahar, from, where the accused Farid Khan was arrested and he was also declared hostile by the prosecution and he stated nothing incriminating against the accused-appellant. PWs 3, 4, 6 and 7 are all police personnel, who accompanied S.I., Sri Jayanta Kr. PW 5 is the owner of Nirmala hotel, Kailashahar, from, where the accused Farid Khan was arrested and he was also declared hostile by the prosecution and he stated nothing incriminating against the accused-appellant. PWs 3, 4, 6 and 7 are all police personnel, who accompanied S.I., Sri Jayanta Kr. Dey (PW 9) at the time of arrest and seizure of fake currency notes from the possession of accused-appellant and deceased accused Churuk Miah but none of those witnesses stated anything incriminating against the accused-appellant . They were also not declared hostile by the prosecution. PW 8 was tendered by the prosecution and neither examine-in-chief nor cross-examined. PW 10 is a tea-stall owner of Babur Bazar and he was examined in respect of the charge framed against accused, Sanjay Das, who has already been acquitted. PW 11, Amarjit Debbarma, is the DSP of CID, who has done the later part of investigation and submitted charge sheet. 11. Section 489-A to 489-E deals with various economic offences in respect of forged or. counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. The word "counterfeit" is defined in Section 28 of I.P.C. The object of legislature in enacting these provisions is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency notes and bank notes. The currency notes are, in spite of growing accustomedness to the credit cards system, still the back bone of the commercial transactions by multitudes in our country. But these provisions are not meant to punish unwary possessors or users. The Apex Court in the case of K. Hasmi v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2005 SC 128 has held that the object of legislature in enacting this section is to stop the circulation of forged notes by punishing who knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged do an act which could lead to their circulation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 746 : AIR 1987 se 33 while explaining the purpose of the above provision has held that :-- The manifest purpose of the provision is to protect people from being deceived or cheated by ensuring that a person accepting a currency note is given a genuine currency which can be exchanged for goods or services and not a worthless piece of paper which will bring him nothing in return, it being a counterfeit or a forged currency note. 12. The offence, no doubt, is one of exceptional nature and gravity and the offence must be dealt with ruthlessly if the change is brought home according to law. A Court of law should not be influenced with the gravity of the offence alone and pass a judgment based on inadequate or cripple evidence. The Court should consider the legal evidence and pass judgment according to law. 13. As already narrated above, PW 9 is the only witness, who has stated about the prosecution case before the learned trial Judge. In his deposition he stated that, on 27.01.2005, while he was working as S.I. of Police., attached with Kailashahar PS, an information was received at PS that there may be transaction/trafficking of counterfeit currency notes at hotel Nirmala, Kailashahar by one Farid Khan of Kelarkandi and that information was recorded in Kls. PS GD entry No. 1725, dated 27.01.2005 and after recording the said information, O/C of the PS directed him to verify the same. Accordingly, he along with some police personnel went inside the hotel, cordoned the room No. 108 in presence of the hotel owner, Mintu Chowdhury (PW 5) and detained the accused, Farid Khan. He also, searched his body, "recovered one 500" rupee counterfeit currency note and seized the same by preparing the seizure list in presence of the witnesses, who were present inside the hotel. He duly proved the seizure list and the seized currency note. He also, searched his body, "recovered one 500" rupee counterfeit currency note and seized the same by preparing the seizure list in presence of the witnesses, who were present inside the hotel. He duly proved the seizure list and the seized currency note. He further stated that he interrogated Farid Khan and during interrogation, Farid Khan stated to him that he kept some counterfeit currency notes in the possession of one Churuk Miah of Kubjhar and knowing that fact he along with police staff of S.B. Unit went to Kubjhar area and on the way, as per version of Farid Khan, they stopped the vehicle near Tillabazar road and from there, as per identification of Farid Khan, he took Churuk Miah in custody and after conducting search of the body of said Churuk Miah recovered 60 numbers of 500 rupee counterfeit notes and seized the same by preparing a seizure list in presence of those witnesses. He duly proved the seizure list and the counterfeit notes. He interrogated Charuk Miah and conducted raid at various places in order to find out more counterfeit notes but could not recover any more counterfeit note on that night. On 28.01.2005 at about 8.15 am he again visited the Nirmala hotel and prepared hand sketch map of the hotel and also examined the hotel owner, Mintu Chowdhury (PW 5) and the seizure witness, Rana Yadav and Sujit Sukla Baidya (PWs 1 and 2.) and recorded their statements. At about 1 p.m. he returned to the PS and lodged the FIR. He duly proved the FIR lodged by him. He has further stated that he was entrusted with the charge of investigation by the O/C of the PS. In course of investigation, he examined the police personnel, who accompanied him and recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. On 28.01.2005, at 8.00 p.m., he received information that a person has been detained at Babur Bazar with counterfeit currency note and accordingly, he went there and arrested the accused, Sanjay Das and seized one 500 rupee currency note and arrested him. On 09.02.2005 he went to UBI, Kailashahar Branch and obtained opinion of the bank that the seized currency notes were counterfeit notes. On 14.02.2005, he handed over the charge of investigation to DSP, Amarjit Debbarma, as per the instruction of SP, CID. On 09.02.2005 he went to UBI, Kailashahar Branch and obtained opinion of the bank that the seized currency notes were counterfeit notes. On 14.02.2005, he handed over the charge of investigation to DSP, Amarjit Debbarma, as per the instruction of SP, CID. In cross examination, on behalf of the accused, he denied the suggestion that the accused Farid Khan was not arrested by him from Nirmala Hotel and that no counterfeit currency note was recovered from the possession of the accused. He however, admitted that no respectable person of the locality was with him while he was conducting the search at Nirmala Hotel. He also denied the suggestion that Farid Khan never made any statement that counterfeit currency notes were with Churuk Miah and that as per statement of Farid Khan, nothing was recovered from Churuk Miah. 14. PWs 1 and 2 in no way supported the prosecution case. They simply stated that on 27.01.2005, at about 9.30/10.00 p.m. they were in Nirmala Hotel and that time a police officer with some constables entered into the hotel and after some time the said police officer asked them to sign on a paper and accordingly, they identified their signatures in the seizure lists. They were declared hostile by the prosecution and the previous statement recorded by the 1.0 in respect of PW 1 has been proved as EXt.3 and In respect of PW 2, proved as exhibited PW 6. PW 5, the owner of the hotel, stated that on 27.01.2005, at about 10.30 p.m. he came to know from his staff that one Jayanta Dey (police officer) came to his hotel and arrested one person. He could not say for what reason the person was arrested. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and his previous statement, recorded by 1.0 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., has been proved as Ext.7. PWs 1, 2 and 5 are the three independent material witnesses of the prosecution but, they stated nothing incriminating against the accused Farid Khan. Now let us see whether Exts.3, 6 and 7 have any evidentiary value or not. On perusal of the deposition of those hostile witnesses, we find that, after the permission to cross-examine all those witnesses was accorded learned PP only put a suggestion to those witnesses that they stated to 'Daroga Babu' the particular statements marked as Ext.3, 6 and 7. On perusal of the deposition of those hostile witnesses, we find that, after the permission to cross-examine all those witnesses was accorded learned PP only put a suggestion to those witnesses that they stated to 'Daroga Babu' the particular statements marked as Ext.3, 6 and 7. There is nothing that the statements were read over to the witnesses and the response explanation of the witnesses were recorded. Simply referring those statements in the form of a suggestion during cross-examination of the witness does not prove the requirement of Section, 145 of the Evidence Act. The Apex Court in Tashildar's case reported in AIR 1959 SC 1012 has laid down the law how a contradiction is to be proved. This Court, in the case of Goutam Das & Ors. v. State of Tripura, reported in 2008(3) GLT 628 and the case, reported in 1989 Crl. (J) 1876 has categorically held that the attention of the witnesses to the previous statement sought to be contradicted, should be given all opportunities for explanation and that is compulsory. In the present case, the previous statements of PWs 1, 2 and 5, recorded by I.O. under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., have not been proved following the procedure, as prescribed by law and therefore, Ext. 3, 6 and 7 cannot afford any aid to the prosecution case and cannot be used to support the version of PW 9. 15. Let us now see whether the sole testimony of PW 9 inspire confidence and based on his evidence alone, it will be appropriate or not to hold the accused-appellant guilty of the offence charged against him. Ext. 16 is the GD entry, which set the law in motion. It was made at 22.05 hrs. That telephonic information was received from a secret source informing that some unknown persons carrying huge numbers of forged Indian currency notes staying at Nirmala Hotel, Kailashahar. No name of those persons mentioned in the GD entry. It is further mentioned that S.I. Sri J.K. Dey (PW 9) was directed to verify the information. According to PW 9, he left for hotel, Nirmala along with PWs 3, 4, 6 and 7, entered the hotel detained accused Farid Khan from Room No. 108 and recovered a 500 rupee counterfeit note from his possession and seized the same in presence of PWs 1 and 2. According to PW 9, he left for hotel, Nirmala along with PWs 3, 4, 6 and 7, entered the hotel detained accused Farid Khan from Room No. 108 and recovered a 500 rupee counterfeit note from his possession and seized the same in presence of PWs 1 and 2. PWs 3, 4, 6 and 7 stated nothing incriminating against the accused and did not at all support PW 9. Since PW 9 is the sole witness his deposition is liable to be properly scrutinized as he is not supported even by the police personnel, who were accompanying him. 16. The GD entry was made at 22.05 hrs. The seizure list was also prepared after recovery of the alleged currency note from accused Farid Khan, at the same time 22.05 hrs, which seems to be not possible. Nirmala hotel, according to the seizure list, situated at about half kilometer away from PS, while the information was received at 22.05 hrs at the PS, the police officer did not at once fly to the spot and seized the currency note abruptly. It is clear that either the date and time mentioned in the GD entry was wrong or the date and time mentioned in the seizure list was wrong. The second seizure list of recovery from the possession of accused Churuk Miah was prepared at Kubjhar, at a distant of one and half kilometer away from PS. According to PW 9, he searched the hotel, detained the accused Farid Khan and upon searching him recovered one 500 rupee fake currency note from his possession and seized the same and thereafter interrogated him and then along with him went to Kubjhar and recovered 60(sixty) numbers of 500 rupee fake currency notes. That second seizure list, which is proved, shows that it was prepared on 27.01.2005 at 23.05 hrs. Both the date and time on the body of the seizure list were over-written and initials were put by the I.O. It is quite suspicious as to how within one hour from the time of making GD entry the entire exercise was done by the I.O. The time of second seizure has been over-written in the FIR also. Such discrepancies have created great doubt as to whether PW 9 acted fairly or not. Such discrepancies have created great doubt as to whether PW 9 acted fairly or not. It further appears that though the alleged detention of accused Farid Khan and Churuk Miah and recovery of counterfeit currency notes from them was completed, on 27.01.2005 at 23.05 hrs but the FIR was lodged by PW 9 on the following day i.e. on 28.01.2005 at 13.05 hrs. There is no explanation at all as to why there was such delay in lodging the FIR. This delay on the part of a police officer is liable to be treated as fat for the prosecution. The alleged search and seizure was made, according to PW 9, within a radius of one and half kilometer form the P.S. but he did not lodge the FIR, immediately after such search and seizure and that has created a great doubt about fairness of PW 9, who was not only the informant but also the 1.0 of the case. It was not proper for the prosecution to entrust investigation with the same officer who lodged the F.I.R. against the accused person. Under such circumstances, while PW 9 was not supported by other item of evidence, it will be a travesty of justice, if the accused-appellant's held guilty, based on sole testimony of PW 9. 17. The learned trial Judge also made an observation that based on the statement of the accused-appellant Farid Khan, recovery of counterfeit currency notes were made from the possession of deceased accused-Churuk Miah. Learned trial Judge thereby intended to make an inference that the arrest of Churuk Miah and recovery of 60 counterfeit currency notes from his possession was made on the basis of the information received from the accused-Farid Khan and while recording the finding of conviction relied on that aspect of the evidence. Section 27 of the Evidence Act prescribes that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of the police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Section 24 lays down that a confession which is not voluntary cannot be proved. Section 25 and 26 exclude confessions to police officer or to anyone else while the person making is in a position to be influenced by a police officer. Section 24 lays down that a confession which is not voluntary cannot be proved. Section 25 and 26 exclude confessions to police officer or to anyone else while the person making is in a position to be influenced by a police officer. The broad ground for not admitting confessions made to a police officer or made to anyone, while the person making it, is in custody of a police officer, is to avoid the danger of admitting false confessions, but the necessity for exclusion disappears in a case provided for by Section27, when the truth of the confession is guaranteed by the discovery of fact in consequence of the information given. In the present case, except the statement of PW 9, there is no supporting evidence that the accused Farid Khan made any such statement that counterfeit currency notes was available with Churuk Miah. According to law, the police officer was supposed to record such statement of the accused and to prove it before the Court that actually such a statement was made by the accused in presence of witnesses consequent whereof, discovery of the fact was made as stated by him. There is no such evidence brought on record. In the absence of any such cogent evidence and for the reasons explained above regarding the conduct of PW 9 we cannot put implicit reliance on any such circumstances that the accused Farid Khan made such statement leading to discovery of such fact of recovery from the possession of deceased accused-Churuk Miah. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we cannot place implicit reliance on the sole testimony of PW 9 and his evidence does not inspire confidence and therefore, the appellant is entitled to get benefit doubt. Accordingly, the judgment & order of conviction and sentence of the convict appellant, Farid Khan, is liable to be set aside and we did so and direct that the convict-appellant be set at liberty at once. The criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of.