JUDGMENT Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 29.04.2010 and 03.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. VIII, South 24-Parganas at Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 5(5) 2008, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 184(4) of 2008, thereby convicting the appellant Ashu Mondal alias Ashu Khamaru for committing offence punishable under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code and further sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code. On 09.02.2008, Debobrata Sen, S.I. of Behala Police Station, received a source information that one young man, strong built medium height black complexion, wearing ganji and pant, was loitering at Parnashree Bus Stand area suspiciously and possessing huge number of counterfeit currency notes with an intention to use the same as genuine in the local market. Debobrata Sen, S.I., informed the Officer-in-Charge of Behala Police Station and was instructed to proceed towards the Parnashree Bus Stand to work out the said information. On receiving instruction from the Officer-in-Charge, Behala Police Station, S.I., Debobrata Sen along with other police personnel had been to Parnashree Bus Stand. Before leaving the Police Station he asked the Duty Officer of the said Police Station to make a G.D. Entry. On the way to Parnashree Bus Stand, S.I. Debobrata Sen met two persons, disclosed the facts and action to be taken to them and asked them to be witnesses to the entire process. They voluntarily agreed to the proposal. At about 14.45 hours, S.I. Debobrata Sen and other officials together with those two persons reached near the Parnashree Bus Stand and found a man tried to hide himself behind the standing bus seeing the police party approaching towards him. He was chased and caught. On interrogation, he disclosed his identity and on queries he admitted that he possessed a bunch of counterfeit currency notes, which he wanted to use in the local market as genuine currency notes knowing fully well that those were counterfeit. He was chased and caught. On interrogation, he disclosed his identity and on queries he admitted that he possessed a bunch of counterfeit currency notes, which he wanted to use in the local market as genuine currency notes knowing fully well that those were counterfeit. He was searched thoroughly and 20 numbers of 1000 rupee notes, 3 numbers of 500 rupee notes and 24 numbers of 100 rupee notes were seized from the right side pocket of his trouser. Those were seized under seizure list in presence of witnesses and after seizure, the seized currency notes were kept in an envelope, which was sealed and labelled properly. The appellant was arrested and taken to the Police Station together with the seized articles. A written First Information Report was lodged by the S.I. Debobrata Sen stating the entire episode in the Behala Police Station. On the basis of such First Information Report, Behala Police Station case No. 40 of 2008 dated 09.02.2008 under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code was started. The case was investigated into and ended in a charge sheet against the appellant for prosecuting him under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was arrayed to face the above charges under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and, accordingly, the trial commenced. As many as nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Some documents were admitted into evidences, which were marked Exbts. 1 to 7/1. The seized 20 numbers of 1000 rupee notes, 3 numbers of 500 rupee notes and 24 numbers of 100 rupee notes were also produced in Court, identified by the witnesses and marked material Exbts. I, II and III collectively. No evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the defence. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence recorded by it and the documents as well as material exhibits placed before it, came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of offence under Section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. No evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the defence. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence recorded by it and the documents as well as material exhibits placed before it, came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of offence under Section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the judgment and order of sentence impugned was passed, which has been assailed by the appellant on the following grounds: (i) That the learned Trial Court failed to apply judicial mind and failed to appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective; (ii) That the learned Trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the source of information allegedly received by the lodger of the First Information Report, i.e., the S.I., Debobrata Sen, was not disclosed either in the First Information Report or in the evidence; (iii) That the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the recovery to seizure of the counterfeit notes were not supported by independent witnesses, i.e., the P.W. 4 and P.W. 7; (iv) That the learned Trial Court also failed to take into consideration of the fact that material exhibits were not bearing signature of the appellant and the Malkhana Register (Exbt. 2) did not reflect about keeping the seized alamats at Malkhana at any point of time; (v) That the learned Trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the appellant was possessing the counterfeit currency notes with an intention to use the same as genuine and that mere possession of the same was not amounting to an offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code; (vi) That the prosecution case was not proved beyond doubt and the learned Trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant on benefit of doubt; (vii) That the learned Trial Court put long and compound questions at the time of examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was confusing and, as such, the appellant could not explain the situation properly in Court and, thereby, was prejudiced highly; and (viii) That the judgment being otherwise bad in law, is liable to be set aside. The lodger of the First Information Report, i.e. S.I., Debobrata Sen, was examined as P.W. 1 in the learned Trial Court. He reiterated the fact stated in the First Information Report. The lodger of the First Information Report, i.e. S.I., Debobrata Sen, was examined as P.W. 1 in the learned Trial Court. He reiterated the fact stated in the First Information Report. He has stated categorically that he got a source information on the relevant date that a person was roaming at Parnashree Bus Stand with counterfeit currency notes. He passed the information to the Officer-in-Charge of the Behala Police Station and on his instructions, he, together with A.S.I., Arshad Ali Khan, Constable Barun Sen, Constable Prabir Mondal, Constable Ranjan Roy, Constable Tarit Baidya and Constable Nirapada Sardar together with Shyamal Naskar and Mintu Mondal had been to the Parnashree Bus Stand and found the appellant tried to hide himself behind a bus seeing police party approaching. He further stated that he caught the man and after searching 20 numbers of 1000 rupee notes, 3 numbers of 500 rupee notes and 24 numbers of 100 rupee notes were recovered from the right side pocket of his trouser and seized the same in presence of witnesses. Apparently, the currency notes were found to be counterfeit. He identified the seizure list, which was prepared by him, ( Exbt.-1). The P.W. 1 stated further that he put the seized currency notes in an envelope and labelled and sealed the said envelope properly. The sealed envelope was produced in Court, which was opened in presence of the Court as well as the appellant. 20 numbers of 1000 rupee notes, 3 numbers of 500 rupee notes and 24 numbers of 100 rupee notes were identified by the P.W. 1 as seized currency notes which were marked Exbts. I, II and III series. The envelope with label bearing signatures of the witnesses as well as the appellant were also produced in Court and was marked Exbt. 2. The P.W. 1 stated in the First Information Report as well as in his statement as a witness in Court that a G.D. Entry was made by A.S.I. Binoy Bhusan Das regarding departure of Police Station by the P.W. 1. That G.D. Entry No. 865 dated 09.02.2008 was admitted into evidence and marked Exbt. 4. The Return G.D. Entry was also produced in Court and marked Exbt. 5. The evidence of the P.W. 1 supported the case made out in the First Information Report fullfledgedly. The P.W. 1 was extensively cross-examined by the defence. That G.D. Entry No. 865 dated 09.02.2008 was admitted into evidence and marked Exbt. 4. The Return G.D. Entry was also produced in Court and marked Exbt. 5. The evidence of the P.W. 1 supported the case made out in the First Information Report fullfledgedly. The P.W. 1 was extensively cross-examined by the defence. It is found that the currency notes, which were seized from the possession of the appellant, were not bearing signatures of the witnesses, the appellant and the P.W. 1. It is found that Exbt. 2 was not bearing the Malkhana Register number. It is also found from his cross-examination that the P.W. 1 did not make any effort to know how and when the subject currency notes were to be used as genuine one by the appellant. Baring these facts, the P.W. 1 stood against the test of cross-examination very confidently. The P.W. 2, Ranjan Kumar Roy, Constable No. 1292, attached to Behala Police Station on 09.02.2008, supported the oral testimony of P.W. 1. He supported the case of recovery of counterfeit currency notes and seizure of the same. He identified his signature on the seizure list, which was marked Exbt. 1/1 and signature on the label which was marked Exbt. 2/1. He identified the appellant also in Court. There is nothing in his cross-examination which may lead to any conclusion that what the P.W. 1 stated was incorrect, rather the deposition of the P.W. 2 is appears to be consistent and credible. It does not appear from the deposition that he or the P.W. 1 had any reason to implicate the appellant falsely in a case of like nature. The P.W. 3, was a Constable attached to the Behala Police Station on 09.02.2008, who accompanied the P.W. 1 to Parnashree Bus Stand. He also supported the statement of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 fullfledgedly. He identified his signature on the seizure list, which was marked Exbt. 1/2 and on the label of the envelope, which was marked Exbt. 2/2. The defence failed to bring anything from him by way of cross-examination, which would go against the prosecution case. The P.W. 4, Shyamal Naskar, an independent witness, has stated that he put his signature on a piece of paper at Behala Police Station. He identified his signaure on the seizure list, which was marked Exbt. 2/3. 2/2. The defence failed to bring anything from him by way of cross-examination, which would go against the prosecution case. The P.W. 4, Shyamal Naskar, an independent witness, has stated that he put his signature on a piece of paper at Behala Police Station. He identified his signaure on the seizure list, which was marked Exbt. 2/3. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. He denied that he and his friend Mintu Mondal were passing through Parnashree Bus Stand at the relevant time and agreed to witness the action to be taken by police officials. But, he admitted that he put his signature on the seizure list and on the envelope. The P.W. 7, Mintu Mondal, did not support the prosecution case of recovery of counterfeit currency notes and seizure of the same in his presence although could identify his signatures on the seizure list as well as on the label of the envelope. He was not declared hostile and not also cross-examined by the defence. He stated that he was called at Behala Police Station and asked to put his signatures on three pages and, accordingly, he did so. The P.Ws. 5 and 6 are police officials. The P.W. 5 had drawn formal First Information Report, which was marked Exbt. 5 and the P.W. 6, an ocular witness, supported the prosecution case entirely. The P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated that he collected report from the Director of Forensic Science in course of investigation to ascertain genuineness of the seized currency notes. The P.W. 9 identified the currency notes, which were marked material exhibits I, II and III series. He also identified rough sketch map and the index of the place of occurrence, which were marked exhibits 7 and 7/1. There is nothing in his cross-examination, which shows that the investigation into the case was done perfunctorily and with a mal-intention to prosecute the appellant falsely in the case. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Trial Court and on perusal of the same, I find that the point raised by Mr. Majumder on behalf of the appellant regarding the way and manner in which the questions were put to the appellant was not in accordance with the procedure, appears to be not correct. Majumder on behalf of the appellant regarding the way and manner in which the questions were put to the appellant was not in accordance with the procedure, appears to be not correct. On the contrary, I find that the learned Judge put questions to the appellant very clearly and distinctly. The appellant obviously understood those questions and only pleaded his innocence and described the prosecution case as a false one. I have carefully gone through the judgment impugned and found that the learned Court had taken each and every factor into consideration besides the specific oral statements of the witnesses. It is true that the P.Ws. 4 and 7 had taken a departure from the prosecution case by saying that they put their signatures on the seizure list and label in the police station but, they could not deny presence of their signatures on those two documents. The seizure list and envelope were not containing signatures of the appellant. In his cross-examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he did not state that his signatures were not taken in presence of witnesses on those documents but in Police Station although it was asked specifically. It is contended by Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that seizure of the counterfeit currency notes, as alleged by the prosecution, was not supported by independent witnesses. But, we should not be oblivious of the fact that there were some other witnesses who supported the prosecution case of recovery of counterfeit notes and seizure of the same on spot. There is no rule of law that simply because those witnesses belonged to police department, their evidence was to be discarded and no reliance could be placed on their oral testimony. It is growing tendency of general public not to depose in any criminal case, more so to support the prosecution case. The P.Ws. 5 and 7 are not exception. They could not deny their signatures on the seizure list as well as on the label. Both those documents were containing signatures of the appellant. It is true that the signatures of the appellant on the seizure list does not necessarily prove the seizer but it is a fact which is relevant in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case. Both those documents were containing signatures of the appellant. It is true that the signatures of the appellant on the seizure list does not necessarily prove the seizer but it is a fact which is relevant in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case. The fake currency notes were produced in Court and admitted into evidence, marked material exhibits together with the label and seizure list without objection. Therefore, the deposition of P.Ws. 1 and two others police officials regarding the seizure and recovery of subject currency notes from the possession of the appellant cannot be discarded simply because the P.Ws. 5 and 7 did not support the prosecution case. I find that the learned Trial Court discussed the issue extensively. There is nothing wrong in the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court in this regard. It was contended by Mr. Majumder, learned advocate for the appellant that mere possession of counterfeit notes is not sufficient to uphold the charge framed against the accused under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. In support of this contention Mr. Majumder referred to a decision of this Court in Jiban Sasmal vs. The State of West Bengal, reported 1987 (II) CHN 430 . It is admitted position of law that mere possession does not necessarily indicate that there was mal-intention or intention to use. Intention to use the counterfeit currency notes, being an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, prosecution is, no doubt, saddled with the liability to establish such intention or attempt on the part of the appellant/accused to use such counterfeit notes. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, I find that there was no evidence, whatsoever, which suggests that the appellant had made any effort to use the counterfeit currency notes. Since evidence on that issue is lacking manifestly, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The offence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: “489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes. Since evidence on that issue is lacking manifestly, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The offence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: “489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes. – Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” A bare reading of Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code makes it abundantly clear that in order to uphold conviction under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, prosecution is supposed to establish (a) possession of currency notes and (b) knowledge or reason to believe that currency notes were counterfeit. In this context, a decision of this Court in Madanlal Sharma vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1990 Cr. LJ 215 (Cal), can well be referred to. The facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence on record altogether established that the appellant was possessing huge number of counterfeit currency notes of different denominations. He could not explain his possession of those huge number of currency notes. He tried to hide himself behind buses when he had seen police officials approaching. This conduct and fact of possessing huge number of currency notes are the circumstances, which suggest that he had knowledge or reason to believe that the currency notes , which he was possessing, were counterfeit. However, in order to uphold conviction under section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, intention to use counterfeit currency notes as genuine, is also to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Since the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the possession, knowledge and intention to use the currency notes, it is also burden of the prosecution to establish the circumstances which lead clearly and irresistibly to the inference that the accused had intention to pass the currency notes to the public. Since the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the possession, knowledge and intention to use the currency notes, it is also burden of the prosecution to establish the circumstances which lead clearly and irresistibly to the inference that the accused had intention to pass the currency notes to the public. When a large number of counterfeit notes are recovered from the accused, in absence of any reasonable explanation tendered by the accused, this case must give rise to the presumption that possession of such notes was for trafficking in currency notes. That presumption, no doubt, is a presumption of fact, which can be drawn from the circumstances of the case. The fact that the accused was found in possession of a large number of notes gives rise to inference that it might be used as genuine. In this connection, a decision of the Madras High Court in State of Mysore vs. Sthapathi Nataranjan, reported in 1971 Mad LJ (CR) 400, can well be referred to. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess a few but huge number of counterfeit currency notes of different denominations. He had no explanation regarding his possession. He tried to escape when police appeared in the scene. This fact altogether leads to the inference that he had knowledge that the currency notes, which he was possessing, were counterfeit and that, obviously, not for any purpose but to use the same or trafficking the same in public. The learned Trial Court had taken everything into consideration and came to a finding that intention of the appellant in trafficking the counterfeit notes as genuine was established from the facts and circumstances of the case. I find reasons enough to agree with the findings of the learned Trial Court. The offence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code was proved against the appellant. In view of the discussion above, the appellant is found not guilty for committing offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment impugned to that extent is set aside. However, the case of the prosecution under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant has been established and, as such, the order of conviction of the appellant under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. The judgment impugned to that extent is set aside. However, the case of the prosecution under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant has been established and, as such, the order of conviction of the appellant under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. It is found that the appellant was in custody for a considerable period of time after passing of the judgment as well as during trial. The case was initiated in the year 2008, i.e., long four years have already been elapsed. Taking all these factors into consideration, I reduce the sentence for suffering rigorous imprisonment from five years to two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. The order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court for the offence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code is modified to that extent. This appeal, thus, stands disposed of. Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Let urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.