Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 783 (CAL)

Mohammed Majid v. State of West Bengal

2023-05-15

DEBANGSU BASAK, MD.SHABBAR RASHIDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated November 11, 2021 and order of sentence dated November 14, 2021 passed by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24Parganas in connection with Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2018 arising out of Sessions Case No. 44 (05) of 2018. 2. By the impugned judgment of conviction, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 489A/489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Waseem Ahammed was, however, found not guilty of the charges. By the impugned order of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and a fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default of payment of the fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences punishable under Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years and a fine of Rs. 30,000/-and in default of the payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offences punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in default of payment of the fine to suffer a further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The facts giving rise to the instant case is that on December 04, 2017, one SI Biswajit Sarkar received a source information to the effect that one fake currency dealer from Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh was coming near AC Market, Khidirpur with a huge amount of fake currency notes for trafficking the same. The de facto complainant along with the raiding team proceeded to AC Market at Khidirpur. He also requested the local people to assist the raiding team in the search and seizure. At about 18.45 hrs., the source pointed out a person carrying a black coloured rucksack bag who was going from the side of Karl Marx Sarani. The raiding team on the footpath in front of the shop styled ‘Sufi Collections’ at 129C, Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata-23 by the side of Sethi Diagnostic and Medicare Private Limited and Khidirpur AC market. The detained person disclosed his identity as the appellant. The raiding team on the footpath in front of the shop styled ‘Sufi Collections’ at 129C, Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata-23 by the side of Sethi Diagnostic and Medicare Private Limited and Khidirpur AC market. The detained person disclosed his identity as the appellant. The de facto complainant offered himself to be searched by the detained person which he refused. Thereafter, search was conducted by the de facto complainant upon the detained person. Upon such search, the bag carried by the detainee was found to contain one black polythene carry bag which in turn contained a torn white coloured paper bags containing 283 pieces of Indian Currency Notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/-each and 295 pieces of Indian Currency Notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/-. The aforesaid currency notes appeared to be counterfeit. The polythene carry bag was kept in a sealed manner inside the bag along with the wearing apparels. A total of Rs.1,71,000/-Indian currency notes appearing to be counterfeit were seized from the possession of the detained person. The aforesaid currency notes along with the other article were seized by the de facto complainant under proper seizure list dated December 4, 2017. The seized articles were packed, sealed and labelled at the spot in presence of the detainee and the witnesses. 4. Accordingly, the detained person was arrested at 20.45 hrs. to enter into a criminal conspiracy with the other racketeers and for preparing or procuring counterfeit Indian currency notes to the tune of Rs.1,71,000/-and possessing the same knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged for the purpose of trafficking. The de facto complainant lodged a written complaint in this regard with the officer in charge of Watganz PS. 5. On the basis of such written complaint, Watganj PS Case No. 344 dated December 04, 2017 under Section 120B/489A/489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code was started against the appellant. The police took up an investigation and on completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet. Accordingly charges under Sections 489A/489B/489C/489D of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant and not accused on July 11, 2018. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, he was put on trial. 6. The police took up an investigation and on completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet. Accordingly charges under Sections 489A/489B/489C/489D of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant and not accused on July 11, 2018. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, he was put on trial. 6. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the conviction of the appellant should be set aside. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that sections 489A and 489B of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is no evidence that the appellant was in any way counterfeiting the Indian currency notes. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the appellant was not using the said currency notes or trafficking the same, as such a case under section 489B of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand. 7. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the testimony of PW3 is not at all trustworthy and for which the possession of counterfeit currency notes by the appellant has not been proved. 8. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the charge framed under Section 489A/120B of the Indian Penal Code was not framed properly. The appellant is alleged to have entered into a conspiracy with the other accused Waseem Ahammed for the purpose of counterfeiting Indian currency notes. However, the said accused has been acquitted. Therefore, the charge under Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be established. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offences of conspiracy as alleged against the appellant. Referring to the evidence of PW3, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that there are material contradictions in the case made out in the written complaint vis-a-vis the deposition of PW3. Learned advocate for the appellant pointed out that as per the case made out in the first information report, the de facto complainant arranged the independent witnesses after arriving at the place of occurrence whereas according to the deposition of PW3, he noticed the police having intercepted a person. Learned advocate for the appellant pointed out that as per the case made out in the first information report, the de facto complainant arranged the independent witnesses after arriving at the place of occurrence whereas according to the deposition of PW3, he noticed the police having intercepted a person. Referring to the evidence of PW3, it has been submitted that PW3 is a pocket witness as he admitted to have deposed earlier in other cases. 9. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the other independent witnesses have not been examined. Moreover, no other member of the raiding team except PW1 was examined on behalf of the prosecution. Learned advocate for the appellant has also challenged the initiation of the independent case for want of proper permission by the officer-in-charge, Special Port Division(SSPD) and the assistant commissioner of police 1, Port Division. 10. Learned advocate for the appellant also submits that since the other accused Waseem Ahammed was acquitted from this case, the case of the prosecution that he received the fake Indian currency note from such accused for the purpose of trafficking does not stand and therefore conviction under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 11. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the learned advocate for the state that the other accused Waseem Ahammed was acquitted due to insufficient evidence. Referring to the evidence adduced beyond the prosecution, it has been submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish that PW1 acted on the basis of a source information and in course of search and seizure conducted by PW1 with the assistance of the raiding team huge quantity of fake Indian currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant. The search and seizure of such fake currency notes supported by the prosecution witnesses including the independent witnesses PW3. The seized articles were sealed and labelled and were duly identified in Court. Even signature on such articles and the labels attached to such articles were duly identified by the witnesses in Court. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the prosecution has been able to sufficiently prove that fake currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant and as such, learned trial court was quite justified in convicting the appellant. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the prosecution has been able to sufficiently prove that fake currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant and as such, learned trial court was quite justified in convicting the appellant. Therefore, it has been contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence should be upheld. 12. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined five witnesses in all. Upon conclusion of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the appellant pleaded innocence having committed no offence at all. He declined the adduce any defence witness. 13. The seizing officer himself deposed as PW1. He supported his case as made out in the written complaint. He stated that on December 04, 2017, he received a source information to the effect that a fake currency dealer from Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh was coming to A.C. Market, Khidirpur for the purpose of dealing in fake currency. Upon receipt of such information, he informed the officer-in-charge of Special Staff, Port Division (SSPD) and other police personnel. He also sought for permission to conduct a raid which was duly granted by the officer-in-charge to the Assistant Commissioner of Police-1 of Port Division. Thereafter, the raiding team proceeded towards A.C. market Khidirpur at about 18.30 hrs. Arriving there, PW1 requested the local people to stand witnesses in the search and seizure upon which two local people agreed. PW1 further stated that at about 18.45 hrs., his source pointed out to a middle aged man coming through Karl Marx Sarani carrying a black coloured bag. PW1 intercepted the said person on the footpath in front of the shop under the name and style of ‘Sufi Collection’ situated at 129C, Kal Marx Sarani. PW1 disclosed that he had information that the said person was carrying fake currency and he wished to search him. He also offered to be searched by the detained person which he refused. 14. The said person disclosed his identity as the appellant, a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, PW1 proceeded to search the person of the detainee. The bag carried by the detained person was searched which contained different articles including one covering with a black coloured plastic. He also offered to be searched by the detained person which he refused. 14. The said person disclosed his identity as the appellant, a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, PW1 proceeded to search the person of the detainee. The bag carried by the detained person was searched which contained different articles including one covering with a black coloured plastic. After removing the black plastic, PW1 found one white coloured box of mobile printed with ‘ carbon mobile.’ Upon opening the said box 238 pieces of currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/-and 295 pieces of currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/-appearing to be fake was recovered. PW1 also stated that the said plastic packet was hidden within the clothing in the rucksack bag which also contained a bluish jeans pant and one blue and yellow coloured check full sleeve shirt. It was further stated by PW1 that the aforesaid articles including the fake currency notes were seized under the proper seizure list prepared under his pen and signature. The seizure list was signed by the independent witnesses as well as the detainee. The seizure list dated December 04, 2017 was tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit 1 series. Thereafter, the detained person was arrested at 20.45 hrs. under the proper memo of arrest and inspection memo. PW1 further stated that the seized currency notes were packed in 10 different envelopes. These were properly labelled and sealed. The labels were also signed by PW1 and the independent witnesses as also the appellant. 15. The envelopes containing 68 numbers of Five Hundred Rupees currency notes, 71 numbers of Five Hundred Rupees currency notes, 70 numbers of Five Hundred Rupees currency notes, 74 numbers of Five Hundred Rupees currency notes, 46 numbers of One Hundred Rupees currency notes, 53 numbers of One Hundred Rupees currency notes, 48 numbers of One Hundred Rupees currency notes, 46 numbers of One Hundred Rupees currency notes, 48 numbers of One Hundred Rupees currency notes, 54 numbers of One Hundred Rupees currency notes were identified by PW1 which were marked as MAT Exhibit I series to MAT Exhibit X series. The labels attached to such packets were marked as Exhibit 2A, Exhibit 11A. PW1 also proved the rucksack bag (MAT Exhibit II). The label attached to such bag was marked as Exhibit 12. The labels attached to such packets were marked as Exhibit 2A, Exhibit 11A. PW1 also proved the rucksack bag (MAT Exhibit II). The label attached to such bag was marked as Exhibit 12. The packet containing the polythene bag was proved as MAT Exhbit XII and the label attached to it was marked as Exhibit 13. The packet containing the mobile box was proved as MAT Exhibit XIII and the label attached to it was proved as Exhibit 14. Another packet containing the wearing apparels with his jeans and pant shirt were tendered in evidence marked as Exhibit 14 and the label attached to such packet was marked as Exhibit 15. PW1 also proved his signatures on such labels which were also exhibited. 16. The recording officer deposed as PW2. He stated that on December 14, 2012, the officer-in-charge of Watganj PS received a written complaint from PW1. The officer in charge endorsed the receipt of such written complaint itself which was identified by PW2 (Exhibit 16A). Upon receipt of such written complaint, the officer-in-charge directed PW2 to start a case and investigated the case. PW2 also received the appellant and some articles which were duly sealed, packed and labelled together with a seizure list dated December 04, 2017. PW2 further stated that accordingly, he filled up the formal FIR and started a case being Wadganj PS case No. 344 dated December 04, 2017 under Section 120B/489A/489b/489C of the Indian Penal Code. PW2 proved the formal first information report (Exhibit 17).PW 2 further stated that being endorsed with the investigation of the case, he took the custody of the appellant and kept him in police custody. He deposited the seized articles with the Malkhana on December 05, 2017 as directed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Port Division to transfer the case to sub-inspector of Police F. Suhel of Special Staff, Port Division. Accordingly, PW2 handed over the entire document of the case along with the seized articles of the appellant to such officer. 17. One of the independent witnesses to the search and seizure has been examined as PW3. He has stated that on December 04, 2017, at about 6.40 pm, he was in the AC Market, Khidirpur. Accordingly, PW2 handed over the entire document of the case along with the seized articles of the appellant to such officer. 17. One of the independent witnesses to the search and seizure has been examined as PW3. He has stated that on December 04, 2017, at about 6.40 pm, he was in the AC Market, Khidirpur. He has further stated that at the relevant point of time, he was coming from Khidirpur AC market for one Imrna Rahaman and noticed that a police had intercepted and wanted to conduct a search upon him. PW3 also stated that the police proposed the intercepted person to search the police personnel which he denied. Thereafter, the police found a black coloured bag from the possession of the said person and from that bag, money was recovered. He further stated that there were currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/-in four layers and Rupees One Hundred Currency Notes in six layers in the said bag. The said also contained the wearing apparels of the detained person. PW3 also staed that the aforesaid articles were seized by the police under a seizure list on which he along with the aforesaid Imran Rahaman signed. The detained person also signed on the seizure list. PW3 proved his signatures on the seizure list. He also identified the bag recovered from the possession of the detained persons. PW3 also proved his signature son the labels attached to the seized articles being Exhibit 3 to Exhibit 15. He also identified the appellant in Court as the person from whose possession the seized articles were recovered in his presence. 18. One witness to the seizure list dated December 08, 2017 prepared at Kareli PS of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh deposed as PW4. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. He stated that he signed on the seizure list as requested by the police of Kareli PS at Uttar Pradesh. He had no knowledge about the contents of the said seizure list. He also denied his knowledge about the contents of the boxes containing articles seized from Uttar Pradesh. 19. The investigating officer has been examined as PW5. He has stated that December 5, 2017, he was informed that the investigation of this case. After being so interested, he interrogated the appellant who disclosed that besides himself, the other accused Md. He also denied his knowledge about the contents of the boxes containing articles seized from Uttar Pradesh. 19. The investigating officer has been examined as PW5. He has stated that December 5, 2017, he was informed that the investigation of this case. After being so interested, he interrogated the appellant who disclosed that besides himself, the other accused Md. Waseem Ahammed was engaged in the manufacturing of counterfeit currency. PW5 informed the matter to his superiors and thereafter, he along with the other forces proceeded to Allahabad, along with the appellant. As per his identification, the other accused Waseem Ahammed was arrested on December 07, 2017 at 20 to 15 hrs. and in course of a search conducted in the house of the said accused, printed fake notes, razors, scales and other articles used for the purpose of counterfeiting currency notes were recovered. PW5 stated that upon an interrogation of the said arrested accused, a search was conducted at his house situated at 65 feet road Kareli, Allhabad, Uttar Pradesh on December 08, 2017. During such search, pen drive, A4 size paper having printed Indian Currency notes of Five Hundred Rupees denomination and One Hundred Rupees denomination and other articles were recovered which were seized by PW5. He tendered the seizure list dated December 07, 2017 and December 08, 2017 (Exhibit 18 and 19). The arrested accused was produced before the Court and brought to Kolkata under transit remand (Exhibit 20). PW5 identified his signatures on the labels attached to the seized articles like scanner, computer, printer and other articles along with the aforesaid seized articles (MAT Exhibit 15 to Exhibit 18). The labels and signatures thereon were marked as Exhibit 21 to 24 series. PW5 also collected the report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of the seized article which were tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 26 respectively. 20. On completion of the investigation, PW5 submitted the charge sheet in the case. PW5 was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant at great length. 21. The appellant is charged with the offences punishable under Section 489A/489B/489C/489D/120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was found in possession of huge amount of fake Indian currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/-and Rupees One Hundred. PW5 was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant at great length. 21. The appellant is charged with the offences punishable under Section 489A/489B/489C/489D/120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was found in possession of huge amount of fake Indian currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/-and Rupees One Hundred. From the evidence of PW1, it transpires that on December 04, 2017, he received a source information and on the basis of such information, after informing his superior and under proper permission, he formed a raiding team and conducting raid at the place of occurrence i.e. 129C, Karl Marx Sarani near Khidirpur, AC Market in front of a shop room under the name and style ‘Sufi Collection’. The evidence also discloses that the appellant was apprehended at that place. He was informed by PW1 that he had an information that the appellant was carrying fake Indian currency notes and PW1 wanted to search him. He was offered that an opportunity to search a police personnel, which he refused. Thereafter, a search was conducted upon the appellant and on such search, some black colour plastic covers kept under the rucksack bag carried by the appellant was found. Upon opening, the black coloured plastic coverings were found to contain a carbon mobile box which, in turn, contained 285 numbers of fake Indian currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/-and 295 numbers of fake Indian currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/-. The aforesaid articles including the rucksack bag together with the wearing apparels in the said bag were seized by PW1 in presence of the independent witnesses under the proper seizure list. Exhibit 1 is the said seizure list. Exhibit 1 contains the signatures of the independent witness PW3 and one another witness who was not examined on behalf fo the prosecution. Exhibit 1 also contains the signature of the appellant. PW3 has corroborated the statement of PW1 so far as the recovery of the fake Indian currency notes from the possession is concerned. In his examination, PW1 stated that he packed the seized fake currency notes in ten separate envelopes and properly sealed and labelled such packets. PW1 also proved the signature of the appellant on the labels attached to such packets. In his examination, PW1 stated that he packed the seized fake currency notes in ten separate envelopes and properly sealed and labelled such packets. PW1 also proved the signature of the appellant on the labels attached to such packets. Although PW1 was cross-examined on this aspect and he was confronted with the accused that there was no date below the signature of the appellant on the labels attached to the seized articles but the signature of the witness on the seizure list or the labels attached to the seized fake currency notes were never challenged in the cross-examination. PW3, the independent witness not only corroborated the recovery of the fake Indian currency notes from the possession of the appellant but also proved his signatures on the seizure list as well as the labels attached to the ten separate packets of the fake currency notes prepared sealed and labelled at the place of occurrence by PW1. The defence does not appear to have been able to extract anything favourable to it. The presence of such witness at the place of occurrence seems to be probable and proved by PW3 himself. In the cross-examination of PW3, he admitted that he once deposed in connection with the case in Alipore Court. Although the defence appears to have taken a plea that PW3 was a pocket witness of the appellant, but no material hasz been produced on behalf of the defence to establish such facts. 22. Therefore, on the basis of the testimony of PW1 corroborated by PW2 together that exhibited documents, containing the signatures of the seizing officer PW1, the independent witness PW3 and the appellant, it seems to be established that the appellant was found in possession of huge quantity of Indian currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/-and Rs. 100/- amounting to Rs. 1, 71, 000/-(Rupees one lakh and seventy one thousand only) suspected to be fake. The investigating officer PW2 supported the specific case on the basis of the written complaint so lodged by PW1 being Watganj P.S. Case No. 344 dated December 04, 2017. 500/-and Rs. 100/- amounting to Rs. 1, 71, 000/-(Rupees one lakh and seventy one thousand only) suspected to be fake. The investigating officer PW2 supported the specific case on the basis of the written complaint so lodged by PW1 being Watganj P.S. Case No. 344 dated December 04, 2017. It was stated by PW1 that when the appellant failed to give a satisfactory answer for the possession of the currency notes said to be fake, he arrested the appellant, recovered the sealed and labelled currency notes and another articles in ten separate packets and therefore brought it with the appellant to Watganj where he handed over a written complaint. PW2 therefore being endorsed with the investigation took the custody of the appellant6 and seized articles were deposited with the Malkhana of the PS on December 04, 2017. However, on December 05, 2017, the case was handed over to PW5, Special Staff, Port Division for investigation. Accordingly, PW2 made over all the documents and the seized articles together with the appellant to PW5. 23. The second investigating officer, PW5 after taking over the investigation of the case, interrogated the appellant and on the basis of the information provided by the appellant, he went to Allahabad with a team of police personnel from special staff port division of investigation. On being led by the appellant, PW5 arrested another accused at about 22 to 15 hrs. on December 07, 2017 at Allahabad. Being led by the said accused namely Waseem Ahammed, PW5 made a search in the office of the said accused situated at 60 feet Road, Kareli, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh and recovered several articles like A4 size white paper printed like currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/-and Rs. 100/-, pen drive, laptop, printer, scanner and other articles which were seized by PW5 under different seizure list (Exhibit 18 and 19). The said accused Waseem Ahammed was also brought to Kolkata under proper transit remand order (Exhibit 20). The aforesaid articles along with the articles recovered from the possession of the appellant were sent by PW5 to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for forensic examination. He received the report from the CFSL which was tendered by PW5 in evidence and were marked as Exhibit 25 and 26. 24. By the impugned judgment, another accused Mohammed Waseem was acquitted of the charges. He received the report from the CFSL which was tendered by PW5 in evidence and were marked as Exhibit 25 and 26. 24. By the impugned judgment, another accused Mohammed Waseem was acquitted of the charges. The state has not preferred any appeal against such order of acquittal. 25. Exhibit 25 and Exhibit 26 are the reports submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory Exhibit 25 relates to the articles recovered from the possession of the another accused Mohammed Waseem. The currency notes recovered from the possession of the present appellant were examined by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory goes to show that the currency notes recovered for forensic examination in connection with the instant case were found to be counterfeited upon such examination. 26. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit 26) was admitted in the evidence by PW5. However, an objection was raised and noted at the time of tendering of such evidence. It has been submitted that such objection was not discharged in accordance with law and a conviction on the basis of such report is not justified. On such proposition, reliance has been placed upon the case of Rahul Ram Versus State of West Bengal (2022) SCC Online Cal-2785 wherein it was held that, “37. In absence of the prosecution leading evidence to account for the absence of primary evidence so as to lead secondary evidence thereon, the documents being marked Exhibits 6 to 9 cannot be treated as being validly exhibited at the trial. Therefore, they cannot be considered as part of the evidence of the prosecution.” 27. In the instant case, the prosecution has not relied upon any secondary evidence. Exhibit 26 is the report submitted by CFSL and it was proved by the prosecution in original. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus Gangula Satya Murthi, (1997) 1 SCC 272 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the implication of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the following terms:- “14. The High Court has adverted to yet another reason for holding that death might not have been caused due to throttling. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus Gangula Satya Murthi, (1997) 1 SCC 272 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the implication of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the following terms:- “14. The High Court has adverted to yet another reason for holding that death might not have been caused due to throttling. The vomited material found on the cot and mouth of the dead body was not sent for chemical examination, and hence the High Court concluded that “it is also possible that death might have been caused due to asphyxia by poisoning”. We are disturbed very much as the High Court has overlooked, if not ignored, the evidence of Dr Trinadharao (PW10) that viscera comprising stomach contents, intestine, piece of lever and also a kidney had been forwarded to the chemical laboratory for analysis and PW10 had reserved his final opinion till he got the result of such analysis. When he later received the chemical examination report he pronounced his final opinion that the death was due to asphyxia as no poison was detected in the viscera. The report of the chemical examiner is available in the records. Section 293 of the Code would enable the Court to use the said document in evidence. In spite of such unassailable materials the High Court has arrived at the finding that “in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be ruled out in its entirety that death was not caused due to poisoning”.” 28. In the case of Dhananjaya Reddy versus State of Karnataka (2001) 4 SCC 9 , it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a report of the serologist can be used as evidence without any former proof under section 293 of Cr. PC. 29. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660 , it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “6. Secondly, the ground on which the High Court has thrown out the prosecution story is the report of the ballistic expert. The report of the ballistic expert (Ext. P-X) was signed by one Junior Scientific Officer. Secondly, the ground on which the High Court has thrown out the prosecution story is the report of the ballistic expert. The report of the ballistic expert (Ext. P-X) was signed by one Junior Scientific Officer. According to the High Court, a Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) is not the officer enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, in the absence of his examination such report cannot be read in evidence. This reason of the High Court, in our view, is also fallacious. Firstly, the forensic science laboratory report (Ext. P-X) has been submitted under the signatures of a Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. There is no dispute that the report was submitted under the hand of a government scientific expert. Section 293(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a government scientific expert under the section, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under the Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. The High Court has completely overlooked the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 293 and arrived at a fallacious conclusion that a Junior Scientific Officer is not an officer enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293 envisages is that the court is to accept the documents issued by any of the six officers enumerated therein as valid evidence without examining the author of the documents.” 30. As noted above, Exhibit 26 was tendered in evidence by PW5, the investigating officer and objection on the part of the defence was noted at the time of tendering the aforesaid document in evidence. Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that document purported to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to which Section 293 applies may be used as evidence in any enquiry trial or other proceedings. The scientific experts to whom Section 293 applies have been enlisted under Section 293 (4) which includes (e) the director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a state forensic science laboratory. The scientific experts to whom Section 293 applies have been enlisted under Section 293 (4) which includes (e) the director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a state forensic science laboratory. Exhibit 26 appears to have been prepared under the pen and signature of the Assistant Director and scientist of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory and it was received by the PW1 by a memo/ letter signed by the Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory. Such officers are explicitly included in the list appended in the Section 293 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as the objection noted at the time of tendering the aforesaid document is concerned, the provisions under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides calling for an objection from the adverse party to admit or deny the genuineness of such documents. Apparently, Exhibit 26 has been admitted as evidence in the case in terms of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We find no illegality or irregularity with regard to admissibility of such document in the evidence. 31. Following the provisions of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where before admitting a document in evidence, the adverse party is called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of such document, Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for use of a document as evidence in any enquiry or trial if such document is a report under the hand of a Government scientific experts like the Director, Deputy Director, the Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory 32. If that be so, we find no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution to the effect that the Indian currency notes recovered and seized from the possession of the appellant were counterfeit. 33. Learned advocate for the State has relied upon the case of Davinder Singh and another versus Union of India 2022 SCC online, Cal-2731 on a proposition that since the appellant was found in possession of counterfeit currency notes, he is presumed to have committed the offence. We are afraid; the aforesaid ratio was laid down by this Hon’ble Court in respect of an offence under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. We are afraid; the aforesaid ratio was laid down by this Hon’ble Court in respect of an offence under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Act of 1985 contains the provisions like Sections 35 and 54 which contemplate a presumption against the accused. However, in a case under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, no such presumption has been provided like a presumption under Section 35/37 of the Act of 1985. 34. An offence punishable under Sections 489(a), 489(b), 489(c), 489(d) and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code. We have also noted that the accused person was charged for committing the aforesaid offences in conspiracy with the other accused Mohammed Waseem and the said accused was acquitted by the learned Trial Court of all the charges noted above. In that view of the facts, a charge under Section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand. 35. So far as the charge under Section 489(a) is concerned, the case made out by the prosecution as against the appellant, the investigating agency received a source information that the appellant was supposed to go to the place of occurrence with fake currency notes for trafficking the same to his associates. The evidence on record also seeks to show that after the present appellant was arrested with huge quantity of fake Indian currency notes, the police defence of the appellant visited Allahabad and arrested another accused person. At the time of such arrest, the office of such accused was searched and several articles said to be used for the purpose of counterfeiting currency notes were recovered. The police did not search upon the seized in any tool apparatus etc used for the purpose of counterfeiting currency notes from the possession or residents or office of the present appellant. In fact, there appears no allegation in the prosecution case that the appellant was involved in counterfeiting of currency notes. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order in respect of the conviction and sentence of the appellants in connection with the offences punishable under Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code seems to be without any basis and is liable to be set aside. 36. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order in respect of the conviction and sentence of the appellants in connection with the offences punishable under Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code seems to be without any basis and is liable to be set aside. 36. As noted above, the police proceeded on the basis of the source information and recovered huge quantity of fake Indian currency notes from the possession of the appellant which was duly seized and the appellant was arrested. There is no allegation against the appellant in the four corners of the written complaint or the prosecution case as submitted that the appellant ever tendered or tried to use, sell or buy or otherwise traffic the fake Indian currency notes with an intention to use the same as genuine. It is a fact that the appellant was found with the possession of fake currency notes and, therefore, for such possession, he was prosecuted, for the offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In absence of any evidence with regard to the same by the appellant, a conviction under Section 489(b) of the Indian Penal Code does stand. 37. Thus, on the basis of discussion hereinabove, the appeal being CRA (DB) No. 100 of 2022 is allowed in part. 38. The impugned judgment of conviction dated November 11, 2021 and order of sentence dated November 14, 2021 passed by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24-Parganas is hereby affirmed so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 489A, 489B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned are hereby set aside. Accordingly, with the disposal of the CRA (DB)100 of 2022, CRAN 2 of 2022 also stands disposed. 39. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is accordingly modified. 40. Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment and order be sent transmitted, at once, to the learned Trial Court for necessary action. 41. Period of detention already undergone by the appellants shall be set of against the substantive punishment in terms of the provisions contained in Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 42. 40. Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment and order be sent transmitted, at once, to the learned Trial Court for necessary action. 41. Period of detention already undergone by the appellants shall be set of against the substantive punishment in terms of the provisions contained in Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 42. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. 43. DEBANGSU BASAK, J.- I agree.