JUDGMENT : The appellant/Krishna Nandan Sah has been convicted under Sections 489(A), 489(B) and 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 21st of July, 2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in connection with Sessions Trial No.550 of 2014(Reg. No.1692/14), arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No.57 of 2014 and by order dated 25th of July, 2016, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for each of the offences referred to above but the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The appellant was caught with Rs. 16,000/- counterfeit currency notes and Rs. 86,000/- Nepali currency notes. 3. The case of the prosecution is based on the F.I.R. lodged by Amarjeet Singh (P.W. 6) who has alleged that while he was in his Office on 27.05.2014, he received secret information that some businessman from Nepal is entering the territory of India with counterfeit currency notes. On such information, P.W. 6 along with three others came out of the Police Station in search of the miscreants. While patrolling, when P.W. 6 came near the village Mushaharnia, he found that some of the villagers had assembled and there was a lot of hue and cry. When the informant asked the reason for such congregation, he was informed that the appellant, who hails from Nepal had earlier purchased some articles from the shop of one Ravindra Mahto and had given counterfeit currency note. He was trying to pass off another currency note on the date of the occurrence when he was nabbed by the local person. On getting such information, the personal search of the appellant was conducted and from his possession Rs. 16,000/- Indian currency notes and Rs. 86,000/- Nepali currency notes were recovered. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by P.W. 6, a case vide Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 57 of 2014 dated 27.05.2014 was instituted for the offences under Sections 231, 232, 237, 238, 240 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, by order dated 16.07.2014, Sections 489(A), 489(B) and 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code was added. 5. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by P.W. 6, a case vide Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 57 of 2014 dated 27.05.2014 was instituted for the offences under Sections 231, 232, 237, 238, 240 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, by order dated 16.07.2014, Sections 489(A), 489(B) and 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code was added. 5. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial as the offences under Sections 489(A), 489(B) and 489(C) are triable by the Court of Sessions. 6. The Trial Court, after examining eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence, convicted the appellant under Sections 489(A), 489(B) and 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Mr. Shankar Kumar, learned advocate for the appellant, while assailing the judgment and order of conviction has submitted that assuming the allegation in the F.I.R to be absolutely true, no offence under Sections 489(A) and 489(B) of the Indian Penal Code can at all be said to have been made out. There is no evidence with respect to counterfeiting of the currency notes or of dealing in such counterfeit currency notes. He has further submitted that so far as the allegation under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the appellant was admittedly nabbed by the villagers and only thereafter, a personal search was conducted by P.W. 6. 8. The seizure list, which was prepared, was not signed by the appellant. This obviously means that no copy of the seizure list was served upon the appellant. 9. He has further argued that the seized currency notes were kept in an envelope but the envelope was not sealed nor numbered. There is no evidence on record as to where the envelope was kept. Was it kept with the P.W. 6 or was deposited in the Malkhana of the Police Station, is not known. Thereafter, the aforesaid currency notes, it has been argued, was received in the F.S.L. only on 25.07.2014. Even the report of the F.S.L. (Ext-7) does not disclose the details of the investigation and it has only been stated that the notes in question are not genuine currency notes but counterfeit notes. 10. Thereafter, the aforesaid currency notes, it has been argued, was received in the F.S.L. only on 25.07.2014. Even the report of the F.S.L. (Ext-7) does not disclose the details of the investigation and it has only been stated that the notes in question are not genuine currency notes but counterfeit notes. 10. In order to appreciate the contention of the appellant, it would be necessary to refer to the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. Ravindra Mahto has been examined as P.W. 1. He has not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile. 12. Similarly, Ram Prasad Mahto and Birendra Mandal, who have been examined as P.W.s 2 and 3 have also not supported the prosecution version and have been declared hostile. P.W. 3, though has admitted and identified his signature on the seizure list (Ext-1/2) but he has stated before the Trial Court that he went to the place of occurrence on hearing noise but did not see anything thereafter. He has admitted that he had no knowledge about the occurrence. 13. Similar statement has been made by Bhikhari Mahto (P.W. 4). He also expressed his complete ignorance about any such occurrence. 14. Anand Singh (P.W. 5), a Head Constable has deposed before the Trial Court that on 27.05.2014, while he was posted as Head Constable in Ram Nagar, near Sonbarsa, he went out of the Police Station for patrolling along with Commandant Amarjeet Singh (P.W. 6). When the Police Party reached Musharnia Chowk, a crowd had gathered near the Chowk. There only, the Police Party learnt that a Nepali citizen has been kept in captivity of the villagers as he had used fake Indian currency note earlier and was trying to use the same on the day of the occurrence. The Commandant (P.W. 6) searched the appellant and seized the counterfeit Indian and Nepali currency notes. He has admitted that the seizure list was prepared at the place of search and has also identified the appellant in the dock. However, during the cross-examination, he could not state the name of the shop-keeper who had been given the counterfeit currency note earlier. 15. On the day, when the appellant was caught by the villagers, the appellant had tried to pass off a fake currency note to a six years old child for the purposes of purchasing a bottle of cold drink. 15. On the day, when the appellant was caught by the villagers, the appellant had tried to pass off a fake currency note to a six years old child for the purposes of purchasing a bottle of cold drink. This was not seen by the aforesaid witness but was only communicated to him by the villagers. 16. Amarjeet Singh (P.W. 6) has supported the prosecution version and has categorically stated that he, on search, found fake currency notes in the possession of the appellant. P.W. 6, in his cross examination, however has admitted that he did not offer himself for being searched before conducting the search of the appellant and did not inform any Police Officer before carrying on the search operation. The seizure list (Ext-1/2) is stated to have been prepared at the Ramnagra Headquarters and not at the place where the appellant was caught by the villagers. The seizure list contains the signature of Ravindra Mahto. 17. P.W. 6 has also admitted that the signature of the appellant was not taken on the aforesaid seizure list. No Magistrate was informed about the incidence and the seized notes were put in a government envelope. He has also categorically stated that the envelope was neither numbered nor marked for identification. He admitted of having received training for identifying forged currency notes, but no certificate was produced by him regarding his competence to discern the counterfeit currency notes. 18. Basant Kumar Rajak, who is the Investigating Officer of this case, has been examined as P.W. 7, who has deposed that the seized notes were sent to the F.S.L. Patna. He has also admitted that he had kept the currency notes in the open. 19. From the conspectus of the deposition of the witnesses, therefore, it becomes clear that the appellant was not in possession of any incriminating substance which could be used for making counterfeit currency notes. No connection of the appellant with any group/gang dealing any counterfeit currency notes also could be ascertained. The appellant was also not found to be selling the counterfeit currency notes for any consideration. 20. Thus, the only fact which requires to be seen is whether the story of the appellant being in possession of the counterfeit currency note is correct. 21. Though the private witnesses have not supported the prosecution version but all the official witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. 22. 20. Thus, the only fact which requires to be seen is whether the story of the appellant being in possession of the counterfeit currency note is correct. 21. Though the private witnesses have not supported the prosecution version but all the official witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. 22. P.W.s. 5, 6 and 7 are consistent in their evidence regarding recovery of the fake currency notes from the possession of the appellant. There is no reason for the aforesaid witnesses to have falsely implicated the appellant. Even during their cross-examination, nothing could be elicited so as to completely throw out the prosecution case. 23. True it is that the currency notes were not kept in the envelope with any marking, but that by itself would not make the prosecution case doubtful. Since the seizure list was prepared at the Ramnagra Headquarters after the arrest of the appellant, a copy of the seizure list could not be given to him. This is definitely a lapse on the part of the Investigating Agency; nonetheless that cannot be the sole ground for jettisoning the prosecution case. 24. The seized currency notes have been opined by the F.S.L. to be fake currency notes. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that no reason has been assigned as to why those currency notes were found to be fake, is not sustainable as the report of the F.S.L. does not require to give reasons for the findings. 25. Thus, on the basis of evidence on record, the conviction of the appellant under Section 489(C) is justified. Section 489(C) of the I.P.C. reads as follows : “489-C. 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.” 26. All the ingredients for attracting the mischief of Section 489 (C) of the Indian Penal Code are complete and hence no interference is called for in the judgment convicting the appellant under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code. 27. All the ingredients for attracting the mischief of Section 489 (C) of the Indian Penal Code are complete and hence no interference is called for in the judgment convicting the appellant under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code. 27. So far as the sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that despite the appellant being a Nepali citizen, he had participated in the trial and has by now completed more than four years in custody. 28. Regard being had to the fact that there is no earlier conviction of the appellant and the quantum of fake currency notes which were found from the possession of the appellant, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to the period of custody which he has already undergone. 29. Thus, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.07.2016 and 25.07.2016 respectively passed by learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 550 of 2014(Reg. No.1692/2014), arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 57 of 2014 under Sections 489(A) and 489(B) of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. 30. The conviction of the appellant under Section 489(C) I.P.C is but upheld and affirmed. 31. However, the sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code is modified to the extent of the period he has already undergone in custody. 32. The appeal is, thus partially allowed. 33. The appellant is in custody. He is directed to be released from jail forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 34. A copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail for information, compliance and record.