JUDGMENT : Ishan Chandra Das, J. Heard learned Advocate for the parties. These two appeals being C.R.A. 416 of 2013 and C.R.A. 282 of 2013 were directed against the common judgment and order of conviction dated 18th March, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Bichar Bhavan, Kolkata in Sessions Case No. 09/2011 (Session Trial No. 2(9)/2011) arose out of Bowbazar Police Station Case No. 652 dated 10th October, 2010 subsequently registered as G.R. Case No. 3752 of 2010, where learned trial court found both the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer RI for six years for the offence punishable under Section 489B and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and RI for four years for the offence punishable under Section 489C of the Code and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- each. Learned trial court also directed to run both the substantive sentences concurrently which were subject to set off in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 433A of the Code. In their respective appeals, the judgment and order of conviction passed by a common judgment as noted above was assailed by both the appellants. The backdrop of the instant case is that on 10th October, 2010 at about 5:30 P.M., the de-facto complainant, S.I. Debabrata Das, of Special Task Force received an information from a reliable source that two persons of the age group of 25 to 35 years would come to Lenin Sarani in Bowbazar P.S. with huge amount of fake currency notes for the purpose of trafficking the same between 6:30 to 7:00 P.M. Immediately, the information was conveyed to the superior officers and a team was formed consisting of the officers and men of Special Task Force (STF, Kolkata) for having vigilant watch and raid. Accordingly, the de-facto complainant being entrusted to the duty being accompanied by the members of the raiding team of Special Task Force started watching over the area and at about 18:50 hrs. it came to their notice that a chaos was going on amongst four persons inside a mobile phone shop at 171/A & B, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata – 12. They entered the shop room where they found both the appellants making quarrel with the shop keepers. it came to their notice that a chaos was going on amongst four persons inside a mobile phone shop at 171/A & B, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata – 12. They entered the shop room where they found both the appellants making quarrel with the shop keepers. The de-facto complainant came to know on enquiry that the appellants were purchasing two mobile phones worth Rs.12,695/- and Rs.17,495/- respectively, bills were prepared for such purchase to which the appellants tendered 26 and 35 pieces of fake notes of Rs.500/- denomination to which the Manager of the shop refused to accept those notes and asked both the appellants to pay genuine notes for purchasing the same for which the appellants became furious and started quarrelling with the Manager of that mobile shop. The de-facto complainant and other members of his raiding team apprehended both the appellants at the spot and on search he recovered a huge number of fake Indian currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination from both the appellants to which they could not give any satisfactory answer for possessing the same and that prompted the de-facto complainant to initiate a proceeding against both of them. As it is revealed that the appellants, Sanjib Kumar @ Gulu and Mojammal Haque @ Melo entered into a criminal conspiracy and pursuant to that conspiracy procured huge amount of fake Indian currency notes with the intention to use it as genuine and used a portion of the same with full knowledge that those notes were fake and thereby all of them committed the offence punishable under Sections 120B/489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, learned court below examined ten witnesses altogether including the de-facto complainant and the I.O. of this case, found the appellants guilty of the offence as noted earlier and convicted them accordingly. In course of trial, learned court below examined ten witnesses altogether including the de-facto complainant and the I.O. of this case, found the appellants guilty of the offence as noted earlier and convicted them accordingly. It is to be noted that one, Tajamul Haque @ Tajammal Hoque who was apprehended in course of investigation for having 20 pieces of fake Indian currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination was also found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 489C of the Code and he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for a period of five months and against that order of conviction, said Tajamul Haque @ Tajammal Hoque preferred an appeal being CRA 213 of 2013 which was dismissed by another Bench of this court and the judgment and order of his conviction were affirmed. Here, both the appeals were filed questioning the legality of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned court below mainly on the following grounds: 1) that the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants in terms of the provisions of Section 489B and 489C of the Code which is not at all warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) learned trial court while dealing with the appellants of the instant case did not apply her mind at all, rather she failed to consider how the complainant could find out the chaos inside the shop room out of thousands of shops at Lenin Sarani. 3) the vital and neutral witnesses at the incident who were present at the place of occurrence have not been examined. 4) the evidence of the prosecution witness suffer from gross contradictions and embellishment, the same being unreliable and should not form the basis of conviction. 5) learned Judge failed to appreciate the defence version of the case in its proper perspective and has rejected the same on vague surmise and conjecture. 6) that the examinations of the appellants in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not proper, rather it was violative of the principles of natural justice. 5) learned Judge failed to appreciate the defence version of the case in its proper perspective and has rejected the same on vague surmise and conjecture. 6) that the examinations of the appellants in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not proper, rather it was violative of the principles of natural justice. 7) learned trial court failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in its proper perspective and passed the order of conviction which was thoroughly illegal and the said judgment and order of conviction are liable to be set aside. Both the appellants were arraigned before the learned court below to answer the charges that they have committed the offence of using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes punishable under Section 489B and for possession of those forged or counterfeit currency notes punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants shall be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 489B if the following ingredients are fulfilled: 1) the notes in question are either currency notes or bank notes; 2) such bank notes or currency notes were forged or counterfeited; 3) accused had transactions or otherwise trafficked in or used as genuine any forged or counterfeited currency notes or bank notes; 4) accused had knowledge or reason to believe that those notes were forged or counterfeited. So far as the offence punishable under Section 489C is concerned, the following ingredients are to be fulfilled for registering conviction of both the appellants: 1) the notes in question are either currency notes or bank notes; 2) such notes were forged or counterfeited; 3) accused was in possession of such notes; 4) accused knew or had reason to believe that such notes were forged or counterfeited; 5) accused intended to use as genuine. Now, it is to be considered whether learned court below was correct in her approach in holding the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under the abovenoted sections (i.e. under Sections 489B & 489C of the Indian Penal Code). Ms. Now, it is to be considered whether learned court below was correct in her approach in holding the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under the abovenoted sections (i.e. under Sections 489B & 489C of the Indian Penal Code). Ms. Subhashree Patel, learned counsel for both the appellants in course of her impressive argument submitted that the prosecution has made out a cock and bull story with regard to the allegations against her clients and urged that as per version of the prosecution, the place of occurrence was a crowded place but only the employees of the shop, wherefrom the appellants were allegedly apprehended, became the witnesses for the prosecution. With reference to the statement of the de-facto complainant, S.I. Debabrata Das of Special Task Force (STF) of Kolkata Police, she urged that said witness (PW1) admitted in cross-examination (at page 15 of the paper book) that where 12/15 persons were assembled at the relevant point of time at the spot of search and seizure, none of the members of the public was produced before the court to corroborate the statement of the witnesses and opined that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution so far can be termed as ‘pocket witnesses’ who also became the witnesses to the seizure list (Exhibits- 2 & 3). To advance her argument, Ms. Patel also drew my attention to the statement of the Investigating Officer, S.I. Bhupal Chandra Majumder (PW10) and pointed out that the investigation has taken place in a perfunctory manner since he did not follow the necessary formalities regarding search and seizure while preparing the seizure list – she added. In course of her argument, Ms. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants, pointed out that the prosecution alleged that the appellants intended to use fake currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination for making payment as consideration for the purchase of two mobile phones, no such mobile phone was seized by the Investigating Officer in course of investigation. Drawing my further attention to the cash memos (Exhibits-5 & 6), she also urged that there was scope of doubt about the genuineness of the shop wherefrom the appellants were allegedly apprehended. Drawing my further attention to the cash memos (Exhibits-5 & 6), she also urged that there was scope of doubt about the genuineness of the shop wherefrom the appellants were allegedly apprehended. Criticizing the findings of the learned trial court in this context, she urged that the employees of the mobile shop in question did not produce any document showing their identity to prove that they were the employees of the shop concerned and opined that in absence of any such document, it should not be proper to place reliance on their statements with regard to search and seizure of the so-called fake notes from the custody of her clients. Further drawing my attention to the report of the expert, B.V. Shyamprasad (PW4), the then Manager at Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd, Salboni, she confidently urged that the report of the expert in this regard could not connect her clients in any manner whatsoever for committing the alleged offence. Mr. Anjan Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted with reference to the written complaint (Exhibit-4) that the de-facto complainant while examining himself as PW1 categorically narrated the incident, took place at the place of occurrence, before the learned trial court particularly with regard to the apprehension of the appellants, search and seizure of fake currency notes in presence of the available witnesses and lodged the written complaint (Exhibit-4) before the appropriate authority for initiation of the proceeding etc. He also urged that in course of investigation, the forged and counterfeited Indian currency notes, seized from the custody of the appellants were sent to the Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd, Salboni and the expert’s report was collected in course of such investigation. With reference to the oral testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution particularly, the de-facto complainant (PW1) and the Investigating Officer (PW10), he urged that the learned trial court was justified in holding the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code and opined with a confident tune that a mere dismissal is the only fate of the instant appeals. From a careful scrutiny of the oral testimony of the de-facto complainant, S.I. Debabrata Das of Special Task Force, Kolkata (PW1), it was revealed that under his leadership, the appellants were apprehended at a mobile shop under the name and style of Gabba Mobile Stores, New Cinema Branch at 171, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata – 13, one of the S.H. Mumtazzudin Group of Companies, in presence of the employees (PWs 2 & 3), of the said mobile shop with huge forged Indian currency notes. From the statement of the witness, Apurba Das (PW2) who happens to be the Manager of the said mobile shop clearly described the situation prevailing at the shop while both the appellants were making an attempt to pay these fake notes with a view to purchasing two mobile sets worth Rs.13,000/- by the appellant, Sanjib Kumar and worth Rs.17,500/- by the appellant, Mojammal Haque @ Melo @ Mojammel Haque. From the oral testimony of the said witness (PW2), it was revealed that during such hot altercation, the de-facto complainant with force came to the shop (place of occurrence) and made a search of both the appellants in presence of these witnesses (PWs 2 & 3), prepared the seizure list (Exhibit-13 series). Similarly, the statement to that of the PW2 was also given by Md. Kasem (PW3) who happened to be the employee of the mobile shop. The attending circumstances never revealed that the appellants were previously known to these witnesses (PWs 2 & 3) and in the premises, it is very difficult to accept that the appellants were implicated with the alleged offence on some unfounded allegations or for previous animosity. Since the prosecution is able to prove that the appellants who were proved to be in possession of the fake notes intended and made attempt to use the same as genuine for purchasing two valuable mobile phones, the provisions of Sections 489B & 489C of the Indian Penal Code are clearly attracted. Accordingly, it can safely be held that the appellants were in conscious possession of the fake notes for use of the same as genuine. Accordingly, it can safely be held that the appellants were in conscious possession of the fake notes for use of the same as genuine. Learned Counsel for the appellants in course of her arguments pointed out that the witnesses (PWs 2 & 3) who corroborated the statement of the de-facto complainant were ‘pocket witnesses’ but in the given facts and circumstances of the case, I find no substance in her arguments rather I firmly conclude that the learned trial court did not commit any mistake by placing reliance upon the oral testimony of these two witnesses, particularly when all the witnesses examined for the prosecution consistently deposed with regard to the involvement of the appellants with the offence as alleged i.e. possession of huge fake notes consciously and taking role for using the same as genuine. Since the ‘mens rea’ in respect of both the offences punishable under Sections 489B & 489C is established, I find no merit in the present appeal which is liable to be dismissed. So far as the quantum of sentence in respect of both the appellants are concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the appellants became part and parcel of the economic offenders, rather intending to destroy the economy of the country by their calculated efforts. In the premises, I am of firm opinion that the sentence was rightly imposed by the learned trial court which is proportionate to the offence committed and I find no reason to interfere with. Hence, both the appeals being C.R.A. 416 of 2013 and C.R.A. 282 of 2013 arose out of a common judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II in Sessions Case No. 9/2011 (S.T. No. 2(9)/2011) are hereby dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court in the above noted case stand affirmed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that her clients are in custody since the date of their arrest in connection with this case. Hence, the jail authority is directed to calculate the period of detention for the purpose of serving out the sentence imposed on them so that they can get the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the jail authority is directed to calculate the period of detention for the purpose of serving out the sentence imposed on them so that they can get the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also reported by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have already deposited the fine as imposed by the direction of the learned trial court. Hence, the jail authority is further directed to take appropriate steps for releasing both the appellants after the term of sentence according to the order passed by the learned court below in Sessions Case No. 9/2011 is over, provided their further detention is not required in connection with any other case. Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be sent to the learned trial court and another copy of the same be sent to the jail authorities forthwith for necessary compliance.