JUDGMENT : Tapash Mookherjee, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08-08-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Malda, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2014 (S.C. No. 448 of 2013). By the said judgment and order, learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 489C of I.P.C and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 2000/- i.d. rigorous imprisonment for six months more. 2. The facts leading to the appeal, in short, are as follows : In the morning of 06-08-2013, Inspector, Himadri Bikash Chakraborty, in-Charge of Habibpur Police Station District: Malda, received an information from his secret source that a person, who was wanted in Habibpur P.S. Case No. 96 of 2013 dated 17-06-2013, was likely to travel by bus and reach Bulbulchandi Bus Stand to go to Dakshin Dinajpur. Immediately, after receiving such information, Inspector Chakraborty formed a team with some police personnel and proceeded towards Bulbulchandi Bus Stand. They parked the vehicle at Bulbulchandi Petrol Pump and thereafter went to the bus stand on foot. At about 11.15 a.m. they noticed a person getting down from a bus and on suspicion the person was apprehended. On asking, the person, thus apprehended, disclosed his name as Ratan Roy who happens to be the appellant in this appeal. The said Ratan Roy was searched and 55 numbers of currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- suspected to be fake currency notes were recovered from the left side pocket of his pant. The said currency notes had been seized through a seizure list in presence of the witnesses. After the completion of the aforesaid seizure, the police team returned to the police station and thereafter, Inspector Chakraborty submitted a suo motu written complaint narrating the aforesaid facts, on the basis of which, Habibpur P.S. Case No. 125 of 2013 dated 06-08-2013 under Sections 489B/489C of I.P.C. was started against the appellant, Ratan Roy and after investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 489B/489C of I.P.C. was submitted against the appellant. 3. After submission of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Malda, from where the case was ultimately transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Malda, for trial. 4. 3. After submission of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Malda, from where the case was ultimately transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Malda, for trial. 4. Considering the materials collected during the investigation, charges under Sections 489B/489C of I.P.C. were framed against the appellant. The appellant denied charges and pleaded his innocence. 5. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in the case. Prosecution also proved some documents. Defence tendered no evidences whatsoever. Considering the evidence thus produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 489C of I.P.C. and convicted the appellant accordingly and passed sentence as mentioned earlier. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgment of conviction and sentence, the convict, Ratan Roy, preferred the present appeal. 7. Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate for the appellant, argued that the search and seizure of alleged fake currency notes from the possession of the appellant has not been proved in the case and hence conviction of the appellant for the possession of fake currency notes is bad in law. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Keshari, learned Advocate, appearing for the State submitted that the fact of seizure of fake currency notes from the possession of the appellant has been proved in substance and contradictions pointed out by Mr. Mondal are either minor contradictions or latches on the part of the Investigating Officer which should be ignored. 9. One Subhash Das (P.W.1), a police constable posted at Habibpur Police Station, stated in his evidence that in the morning of 06-08-2013 he accompanied Inspector-in-Charge of the police station and others in a raid and during such raid, they arrested the present appellant and recovered 55 numbers of fake currency notes from the possession of the appellant. 10. Pabitra Kumar Mahato, a Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Habibpur Police Station at the relevant time, stated that on 06-08-2013 he accompanied the Inspector-in-Charge, Mr. Himadri Bikash Chakraborty, and others in a raid at Bulbulchandi Bus Stand and during that raid, they recovered 55 numbers of fake currency notes by search from the pant of the appellant. He stated further that on asking the appellant disclosed that the appellant had purchased those notes and going to hand them over to their leader Madhab Mondal @ Makhan Singh. 11. He stated further that on asking the appellant disclosed that the appellant had purchased those notes and going to hand them over to their leader Madhab Mondal @ Makhan Singh. 11. One Tarak @ Somnath Roy (P.W.3) was examined as a neutral witness of the alleged search and seizure but he was declared hostile by the prosecution. 12. Promat Sarkar (P.W.4) was also a constable posted Habibpur Police Station at the relevant time. He stated that on 06-08-2013, he accompanied Inspector-in-Charge, Himadri Bikash Chakraborty, and others in a raid at Bulbulchandi Bus Stand and during such raid, Inspector Chakraborty recovered 55 numbers of fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- from the pant of the appellant. He stated further that after such seizure, they returned to the police station with the seized articles and the appellant. 13. One Tapan Kumar Bhowmik (P.W.5) was the driver of the Habibpur Police Station. He stated that on 06-08- 2013 he had taken I.C. of Habibpur Police Station, Himadri Bikash Chakraborty, to Bulbulchandi Petrol Pump and subsequently he had taken the vehicle to Bulbulchandi Bus Stand and went back to the police station with the police personnel. 14. Mr. Subhas Singha (P.W.6) was also examined as an independent witness of the alleged search and seizure but he was also declared hostile. 15. A.S.I, Samir Mukherjee (P.W.7) was also posted at Habibpur Police Station at the relevant time and he also stated that on 06-08-2013 he had been to Bulbulchandi Bus Stand with I.C, Himadri Bikash Chakraborty and other police personnel and at about 11.40 a.m. the present appellant was apprehended and 55 numbers of fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- were recovered from the appellant. 16. One Amitav Misra (P.W.8) was an officer of Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd. at Salbone. Mr. Misra stated that he examined some currency notes sent from Habibpur Police Station in connection with Case No. 125/13 dated 06-08-2013 and on examination he found that all those notes were counterfeit notes. 17. S.I. Ranjit Majumdar (P.W.9) investigated and submitted charge-sheet in the case as claimed by him. 18. As mentioned above, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 claimed that 55 numbers of fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- were recovered in their presence. 17. S.I. Ranjit Majumdar (P.W.9) investigated and submitted charge-sheet in the case as claimed by him. 18. As mentioned above, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 claimed that 55 numbers of fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- were recovered in their presence. P.W.1 or P.W.7 could not say whether any independent person of the locality had been called on by their officer during the search. 19. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 stated that fake currency notes had been recovered from the left side pocket in the appellant’s pant but P.W.7 stated that those notes were recovered from the back side pocket of the appellant. 20. From the statements of the witnesses mentioned above, it is found that the place of the alleged seizure is a busy bus stand surrounded by many shops but without calling any of those shop keepers the raiding team, called P.W.3 and P.W.6 to witness the alleged seizure. P.W.6 was an illiterate person, who allegedly put his L.T.I. on the seizure list. In the circumstances, it is not understandable as to why such an illiterate person was called to sign on the seizure list. Be that as it may, both P.W.3 and P.W.6 denied to have any knowledge about the alleged seizure and they were declared hostile by the prosecution and during cross-examination by the defence, P.W.6 stated that he had put his L.T.I. on some blank papers as per the instruction of the police and P.W.3 also stated that he had put his signature on some blank papers in the police station. So, prosecution case remains based on the oral testimonies of the police personnel mentioned earlier. 21. It is true that there is no such rule that police personnel have to be always disbelieved. Similarly, it is also true that evidence of police personnel should not be taken always at its face value. The question of such believe or disbelieve depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 22. Mr. Keshari, learned Advocate appearing for the State, argued that both the complaint and the seizure list prepared by Inspector, Himadri Bikash Chakraborty, have been proved under Section 47 of the Evidence Act and accordingly admitted in evidence and hence it has the full value in the event it was proved by Mr. Chakraborty himself. 23. 22. Mr. Keshari, learned Advocate appearing for the State, argued that both the complaint and the seizure list prepared by Inspector, Himadri Bikash Chakraborty, have been proved under Section 47 of the Evidence Act and accordingly admitted in evidence and hence it has the full value in the event it was proved by Mr. Chakraborty himself. 23. The principal witness in the case, i.e. Inspector, Himadri Bikash Chakraborty, who led the raiding team, allegedly seized the currency notes in question from the appellant and prepared the seizure list in the case could not be examined by the prosecution during trial on the ground that he was seriously sick and in bed-ridden condition as stated by I.O. and for such reason, the complaint submitted by Inspector Chakraborty as well as the seizure list prepared by him have been both proved by the I.O. identifying the signatures and the hand writing. 24. As mentioned earlier, Inspector, Himadri Bikash Chakraborty, in-charge of Habibpur Police Station, at the relevant time, was the principal witness in the case. He led the raiding team, searched the person of the appellant and recovered the fake currency notes as alleged. He also prepared the seizure list, but he could not be examined by the prosecution during trial. However, an explanation has been offered by the prosecution regarding his absence as a witness. In the circumstances, in his absence prosecution is to prove their case by strong and cogent evidence of other witnesses examined in the case. Let it be now seen whether the prosecution could do it. 25. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 claimed that the fake currency notes had been recovered from the possession of the appellant in their presence. There are some discrepancies in their statements as discussed earlier. Be that as it may, the signature of none of them does appear on the seizure list, none of them has been cited also in the seizure list as a witness. The signatures of P.W.3 and P.W.6 only appear on the seizure list. Out of them, P.W.3 identified his signature on the seizure list and the L.T.I. of P.W.6 does appear on the seizure list. Both of those two witnesses stated that they put their signatures and L.T.I. on some blank papers in the police station and both of them had been declared hostile by the prosecution. Out of them, P.W.3 identified his signature on the seizure list and the L.T.I. of P.W.6 does appear on the seizure list. Both of those two witnesses stated that they put their signatures and L.T.I. on some blank papers in the police station and both of them had been declared hostile by the prosecution. So, if their evidence is excluded then there is no other witness signing on the seizure list. Mr. Keshari could not explain as to why signature of none of those policemen allegedly witnessing the seizure was obtained in the seizure list. The fact that the contents of the seizure list has been proved as a document cannot rescue the prosecution from the situation. So, when P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 did not sign on the seizure list, it is very difficult to accept any of them as a witness of the alleged seizure. 26. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 identified Mat. Ext. I to be the fake currency notes allegedly seized from the appellant. P.W.1 stated that after the seizure those notes were sealed and labelled. But during his cross-examination, he admitted that Mat. Ext. I did not bear the signature of any of the witnesses. P.W.2 explained further that no label was pasted on the seized currency notes after seizure and none of those notes had any identification mark or signature. The evidence of P.W.4 on the point was also the same. In fact, one loose label has been produced but as mentioned above, witnesses stated that no label was pasted on the seized notes after the seizure. Witnesses also admitted that no special identification mark or the signature of any witness was there on those currency notes. In such circumstances, how the witnesses could identify those currency notes to be the currency notes allegedly seized from the appellant, is a mystery. So, the link between the currency notes allegedly seized and those examined by the expert (P.W.8) is missing. 27. So, from what has been discussed above, it is clear that the prosecution’s allegation against the appellant that the appellant possessed fake currency notes is not proved beyond all doubts. The Trial Court, therefore, committed error in law, convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 489C of I.P.C. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. 27. So, from what has been discussed above, it is clear that the prosecution’s allegation against the appellant that the appellant possessed fake currency notes is not proved beyond all doubts. The Trial Court, therefore, committed error in law, convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 489C of I.P.C. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellant in the case are hereby set aside. The appellant is found not guilty of the charge under Section 489C of I.P.C. and he is, accordingly, acquitted. In consequence, the Rule for enhancement of sentence of the appellant issued stands discharged. The appellant be released from the jail at once if his detention is not needed in connection with any other cases. 28. Let the L.C.Rs. be returned to the Trial Court at once along with a copy of the judgment. 29. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.