JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. 1. All the appeal are directed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2013 and 30.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench-II, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Sessions Trial No. 1(9) of 2012 arising out of Sessions Case No. 99 of 2009 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 489B/489C/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year more. Both the sentences run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that Sunil Debnath, P.W.2, the then Sub-Inspector of police, Special Task Force, Calcutta received an information on 07.05.2009 that 3/4 persons would be coming to Hedua Park area under Burtala P.S. for dealing in fake Indian currency notes. Upon receipt of the said information, P.W.2 along with members of the Special Task Force proceeded to the said place and kept watch on the different shops in the said area. Around 4.30 P.M., they heard a hue and cry from a mobile shop named and style ‘Fasto Communication’ at 45/1A, Beadon Street, Calcutta. Upon entering the shop they found a hot altercation was going on between the shop owner and the appellants over the issue of tendering fake Indian currency notes. Upon asking the shop owner they were informed that the appellants had come to purchase mobile phones and had tendered fake currency notes one after another. As the shop owner refused to accept such fake currency notes there was an altercation. Under such circumstances, P.W.2 and his team members apprehended the appellants who disclosed their identities as Mahibur Rahaman and Tafazul Hossain @ Bidyut both of Kaliachak, Malda, Ajit Sarkar of Pairadanga, Ranaghat, Nadia and Ram Dhiraj Rai of Gaziabad, U.P. The appellants were searched and a large number of fake Indian currency notes valued at Rs.60,000/- in all were seized from the possession of the appellants along with identity card, money bag and their personal belongings. The seized notes were packed and sealed in separate packets and labeled. Signatures of the witnesses and the appellants were obtained on the seized articles at that spot. Appellants were arrested and taken to Burtola P.S with two seized currency notes. The seized notes were packed and sealed in separate packets and labeled. Signatures of the witnesses and the appellants were obtained on the seized articles at that spot. Appellants were arrested and taken to Burtola P.S with two seized currency notes. On the written complainant of P.W.2 instant case was registered. The seized notes were sent for examination by an expert who opined that the said notes were fake. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 489B/489C/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench-II, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta for trial and disposal. Charges were framed against the appellant under the aforesaid sections. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. It was the specific plea of Mahibur Rahaman and Tafazul Hossain @ Bidyut that they were illegally arrested from the tenanted premises of one Ranjan Poddar at Malda and thereafter falsely implicated in the instant case. 4. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove its case and exhibited a number of documents. 5. In order to probabilise their defence, appellants Mahibur Rahaman and Tafazul Hossain @ Bidyut examined three witnesses including one Ranjan Poddar and exhibited a number of documents. 6. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2013 and 30.11.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants. 8. Ms. Goswami, learned counsel was requested to appear as amicus curiae in the matter. 9. Ms. Goswami argued that the version narrated by the official witnesses, namely, P.W.2 & 6 is contradicted by the shop owner, P.W.4. P.W.4 claimed that the appellants had voluntarily handed over the seized notes to P.W.2 while the latter claimed that the notes were seized from the possession of the appellants. P.W.4 could not identify the appellants specifically in court and no document was filed to show that he was carrying on business in mobile phones from the said shop. In fact, mobile phones which were sought to be purchased by the appellant have not been seized and the cash memo seized does not bear any name or address of the purchaser. In fact, mobile phones which were sought to be purchased by the appellant have not been seized and the cash memo seized does not bear any name or address of the purchaser. She also submitted that there is a snap in the chain of custody with regard to seized notes as there is no date in the labels affixed on the sealed covers containing the notes and the Malkhana register has also not produced. She submitted that the evidence of D.W.1 & 3 clearly show the appellants Mahibur Rahaman and Tafazul Hossain @ Bidyut were illegally arrested from their tenanted premises at Malda and a complaint had been lodged by D.W. 1 and 3 in that regard. Report of S.P., Malda has also been exhibited. She submitted that procedure of conducting search was illegal as all members of the raiding party were not offered to be searched prior to undertaking search of the appellants. Hence, the appellants are liable to be acquitted. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Maity, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of the victim P.W.2 & 6, members of the raiding party, unequivocally show that fake Indian currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellants. The appellants have failed to account for the said seized notes which were subsequently found to be fake. Their evidence are substantially corroborated by P.W.3 & 4. It is pertinent to note that the numbers of the seized notes have been stated in the seizure list and tallies with the numbers of the seized notes which were examined by the expert as evident from his report. Hence, there is not possibility in substitution of seized notes in the facts of the case. Evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as contemporaneous documents exhibited in the instant case clearly show that the appellants were arrested at the place of occurrence and the defence plea of two of the appellants that they were arrested at different place is clearly an afterthought. Evidence of D.W.1 that the appellants Mahibur Rahaman and Tafazul Hossain @ Bidyut were tenants under him is not supported by documentary evidence. Hence, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 11. P.W. 2 is the de facto complainant and leader of the raiding party. He deposed that on 07.05.2009 he was posted as SI of Police at Special Task Force of Kolkata Police. Hence, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 11. P.W. 2 is the de facto complainant and leader of the raiding party. He deposed that on 07.05.2009 he was posted as SI of Police at Special Task Force of Kolkata Police. On that date he received information from a source that 3 /4 persons shall come to Hedua Park for the purpose of using FICNs. Accordingly he along with other members of the Task Force rushed to the spot and kept watch. Around 4.30 p.m., they heard a hue and cry from a mobile shop named M/s. Fasto Communication situated at 45/1A, Beadon Street, Kolkata-6. He along with his force entered the shop and disclosed their identity. The shop owner told them that four customers had come to the shop for purchasing mobile phones. The shop owner displayed some mobile phones to them and thereafter they desired to purchase some of the phones. Initially the purchaser asked the shop owner to prepare the bill in the name of Mahim Master of Kaliachawk, Malda. The shop owner disclosed that the price of the said mobile phones were valued at Rs.1750/- per set. Mahim Master produced four currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each which the shop owner suspected to be fake and refused to accept. Thereafter other persons accompanying Mahim Master also offered similar currency notes one after another which appeared to be fake and the shop owner refused to accept them. This resulted in an altercation. Hearing this P.W. 2 apprehended the four customers. On interrogation they disclosed their names as Mohibur Rahaman and Tofazul Hossain of Kaliachawk, Malda, Ajit Sarkar of Ranaghat (Nadia) and Ram Dhiraj Rai of Gazipur, UP. He offered the said persons to search his body and proceeded to search. Upon search 13 currency notes of denomination of Rs.1,000/- each suspected to be fake were recovered from the right pocket of the trouser of Ajit Sarkar. Two pieces of currency notes of denomination Rs.1000/- each were recovered from his left hand which was also suspected to be fake. Similarly, 36 pieces of notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each were recovered from the right side pocket of the trouser of Mohibur Rahaman @ Master. Four pieces of notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each were also recovered from his right hand. Similarly, 36 pieces of notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each were recovered from the right side pocket of the trouser of Mohibur Rahaman @ Master. Four pieces of notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each were also recovered from his right hand. P.W. 2 searched the body of Ram Dhiraj Rai and recovered 37 pieces of notes denomination of Rs.500/- from the right side pocket of his shirt. Three pieces of currency notes of similar denomination were recovered from his right hand. Thereafter he searched Md. Tofazul Hossain @ Bidyut. At the time of search six pieces of notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each were recovered from the left side trouser pocket of the said accused. P.W. 2 seized all the currency notes suspected to be fake. He prepared seizure list. After seizure he sealed and labelled the notes in separate packets. He obtained signatures of the seizure witnesses on the seizure lists and on the labels. He arrested the accused persons forwarded them to Burtolla P.S. along with seized alamats, papers and documents. He submitted complaint written by him at Burtolla P.S. He handed over the accused persons along with seized alamats, papers and documents to the officer-in-chare of Burtolla P.S. He identified the accused persons in court. He proved the seizure lists prepared by him and identified the seized FICNs which were exhibited in Court. He also proved the envelopes with labels in which the FICNs had been kept. In cross-examination, he stated that he could not produce the G.D. Book to show that they had gone out to conduct raid upon receiving information. He did not ask the shop owner to file written complain about the incident. 12. P.W. 6 deposed that in 2009 he was posted at Special Task Force, Lalbazar, Kolkata. ON 07.05.2009 he accompanied P.W. 2 to conduct a raid. He substantially corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2. He proved his signatures on the seizure lists as well as on the labels. He identified the accused persons in Court. 13. P.W. 4 is the shop owner who carried business in mobile phones under the name and style of Fasto Communication at premises No. 45/1A, Beadon Street, Calcutta-6. He deposed two years ago an incident occurred in his shop. Four persons entered his shop at around 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. for purchasing mobile phones. He displayed various mobile phones to them. He deposed two years ago an incident occurred in his shop. Four persons entered his shop at around 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. for purchasing mobile phones. He displayed various mobile phones to them. He prepared bills and cash memos. The value of the mobile phones were around Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/-. After checking the mobile phones the said persons handed over currency notes of denomination Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- as sale price. He suspected the said notes to be fake. An altercation ensued. At that point some persons entered the shop and disclosed their identities as police personnel of STF. The police officers of STF asked the said persons to bring out the currency notes. Thereafter the said persons handed over currency notes to the police officer which were similar to those which had been offered to him. The police officers took possession of the notes and obtained signatures on those notes. He identified his signatures on the seizure lists. He also identified his signatures on the currency notes and the envelopes and labels. The bill/cash memo prepared by him was exhibited. He stated that same type of persons who were standing on the dock in the court room had come to his shop. 14. P.W. 3, a customer had come to the shop of P.W. 4. on that fateful day to purchase card and/or coupon of mobile phones. He witnessed the incident of seizure of currency notes by the police personnel from the possession of the accused persons. He proved his signature on the seizure list, labels as well as on the seized currency notes. 15. P.W. 8 is the investigating officer in the instant case. He forwarded the arrested accused persons before the Magistrate and remanded them to police custody. He recorded the statements of the members of the raiding party. He sent the seized currency notes to Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd., Salboni, Midnapore for examination. He received the report. He identified the report which was marked as exbt. 11. He went to the place of occurrence and took steps for preparation of sketch map of the place of occurrence by the plan maker (P.W.1) attached to the Detective Department, Lalbazar. He proved the final sketch map and blue print of the place of occurrence. He submitted charge-sheet. 16. He identified the report which was marked as exbt. 11. He went to the place of occurrence and took steps for preparation of sketch map of the place of occurrence by the plan maker (P.W.1) attached to the Detective Department, Lalbazar. He proved the final sketch map and blue print of the place of occurrence. He submitted charge-sheet. 16. P.W. 7 was posted as Assistant General Manager of Bharatia Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd. He deposed that in 2009 they received 105 suspected bank notes of denomination of Rs.1,000/- each and 90 notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each in a sealed cover along with sample seal from Deputy Commissioner of Police (STF), Lalbazar, Kolkata. After examining the said notes it was opined that the said notes were counterfeits. He proved the report marked as exbt. 11. 17. D.W. 1 deposed that appellants Mohibur Rahaman and Toffazul were tenants under him. On 03.05.2009 at about 11 p.m. six police personnel claiming to be police officers from Lalbazar came to his address and enquired of the aforesaid persons. Thereafter the police officers forcibly broke into the tenanted premises and took away the said persons in a black vehicle. He reported the incident to English Bazar P.S. in writing. He produced photocopies of two letters dated 15.03.2010 and 02.08.2010. In cross-examination he stated that he could not produce rent receipts to show that the aforesaid persons were tenants under him. 18. D.W.3, Hayatun Nesha is the sister of the aforesaid appellants. She stated that P.W.1 informed her that on 3.5.2009 some persons claiming to be police officers of Lalbazar had arrested her brothers. Upon hearing the news, she informed the matter to the local people and they advised her to lodge complaint. She went to local police station but they refused to receive complaint. She submitted written complaint dated 19.5.2009 before S.P. Malda (Ext. D). She did not get favourable report from S.P. Malda. 19. D.W.2, Jhotan Prasad was posted as S. I. of Police in English Bazar Police Station produced the complaint lodged by P.W.2. He also produced the enquiry report written by S.I. Bhaskar Pradhan (Ext. A) as well as the report signed by S.P. Malda (Ext. B). 20. D). She did not get favourable report from S.P. Malda. 19. D.W.2, Jhotan Prasad was posted as S. I. of Police in English Bazar Police Station produced the complaint lodged by P.W.2. He also produced the enquiry report written by S.I. Bhaskar Pradhan (Ext. A) as well as the report signed by S.P. Malda (Ext. B). 20. From the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 it appears that the said police personnel who were attached to STF, Kolkata had received secret information that 3 /4 persons would come to Hedua Park area for dealing in FICNs. Accordingly, they kept watch over the area. Around 4.30 p.m. there was an altercation in the shop of P.W.4. They entered the shop and disclosed their identities to the shop owner (P.W.4). The latter informed them that the appellants had come to the shop to purchase mobile phones and as he was preparing cash memos/bills, they offered currency notes which he suspected were fake. Since he refused to accept the currency notes, there was an altercation. Thereupon P.W.1 apprehended the appellants who disclosed their identities. Upon search large amount of FICNs of denomination of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500 each were recovered from the appellants. The FICNs were seized at the spot, sealed and labelled. Signatures of the witnesses as well as the accused persons were taken on the currency notes as well as the envelopes and labels. Thereafter the accused persons and the seized alamats were taken to the Burtalla Police Station where P.W.2 lodged FIR. 21. Evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 have been corroborated by P.W.4, the shop owner and a customer (P.W.3). It has been argued that there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.4 on one hand and the members of the raiding party (P.W.2 and 6) on the other hand. While P.W.4 claimed that the accused persons had brought out the seized currency notes out of their own volition, P.W. 2 claimed that he had recovered the seized notes upon search of the accused persons. In my considered opinion, such variation in the versions of the said witnesses is a minor one as the aforesaid witnesses have substantially corroborated each other that the currency notes suspected to be fake were recovered from the possession of the appellants. 22. It has been argued that no name or other particulars have been stated in the cash memo/bill produced in Court. 22. It has been argued that no name or other particulars have been stated in the cash memo/bill produced in Court. Analysis of evidence of P.W.4 would show that he was proceeding to write the cash memos/bills when the accused persons had tendered currency notes which he suspected to be fake. There is no evidence that execution of the cash memos/bills were complete and, therefore, the absence of the names and other particulars in the cash memos/bills which had been partly written cannot cause a dent to the veracity of the prosecution case. 23. Evidence of the official witnesses, P.W.2 and 6, have been substantially corroborated not only by the evidence of the shop owner (P.W.4), but also by one of the customers, namely P.W.3. Cross-examination of P.W.4 with regard to the non production of trade licence of his shop room is of little consequence in view of the overwhelming evidence on record including that of the plan maker (P.W.1) which unequivocally proves that P.W.4 was carrying on business in mobile phones from the aforesaid premises. 24. Furthermore, it is nobody’s case that P.W.2 or any other member of the raiding party had planted the said currency notes in the body of the appellants at the place of occurrence. On the other hand, it is the specific defence of the appellants, namely, Mahibur Rahaman and Tafazul Hossain @ Bidyut that they had not at all been arrested from the place of occurrence but had been arrested from the tenanted premises of D.W.1 at Malda on 3.5.2009. The aforesaid defence, however, does not appear to be a credible one. D.W.1 could not produce any document with regard to his ownership of the premises. Nor could he produce rent receipt with regard to the tenancy in favour of the appellants. 25. That apart, written complaint with regard to the illegal arrest of the appellants was submitted for the first time by their sister, D.W.2, on 19.5.2009 much after the alleged incident. Hence, I am of the opinion that the defence of the appellants, namely, Mahibur Rahaman and Tafazul Hossain @ Bidyut that they were not arrested from the place of occurrence but had been arrested earlier from a different place does not have any legs to stand and pales into insignificance in the face of consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses which were corroborated by contemporaneous documents. 26. 26. Finally, I am of the opinion that chain of custody of the seized currency notes has been well established. The numbers of the seized currency notes were contemporaneously noted in the seizure lists which were duly signed by the appellants as well as the prosecution witnesses. The number of the seized notes noted in the seizure lists tallied with those not in the experts’s report (Ext.11). Signatures of the prosecution witnesses were on the seized notes which were produced in court. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that failure to produce the Malkhana Register does not snap the live link between the seized notes and those which were examined by the expert in this case. 27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I uphold the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants. 28. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 29. Period of detention suffered by appellants during investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon them under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 30. Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance. 31. I record my appreciation for the assistance rendered by Ms. Goswami as amicus curiae to this Court for disposing the appeal. 32. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. : I agree.