Bulk Possession Would Lead To Irresistible Conclusion Of Trafficking Counterfeit Currency Notes Punishable U/S 489B IPC: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that possession of a bulk quantity of counterfeit currency notes without an explanation would only lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused had an object of trafficking counterfeit currency notes and not merely using it.“The appellants and their companion children were in possession of 139 notes of 1000 rupee and 168 notes of 500 rupee...
The Kerala High Court has held that possession of a bulk quantity of counterfeit currency notes without an explanation would only lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused had an object of trafficking counterfeit currency notes and not merely using it.
“The appellants and their companion children were in possession of 139 notes of 1000 rupee and 168 notes of 500 rupee denominations. One among them was proved to have attempted to transact a 1000 rupee counterfeit note. The appellants came to Kerala and stayed in lodges and they are Hindi speaking persons. They did not offer any explanation for the possession of such a quantity of counterfeit currency notes. In such circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that they carried and possessed the counterfeit currency notes with the object of transacting the same amounting to trafficking of counterfeit currency notes, and not merely possession with intent to use”, stated Justice P G Ajithkumar.
The children in conflict with the law were sent to juvenile homes. The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Special Court for offences under Section 120B (punishment for criminal conspiracy) read with Sections 489B (using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes) and 489C (possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes) of the IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellants had preferred an appeal.
The court stated that the evidence of police officers was sufficient to prove recovery of currency notes from the possession of appellants. It also took note of the statements from the owners of the tourist homes to prove that police officers recovered currency notes from appellants. The court further noted that the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory also proves that the currency notes seized from the appellants were counterfeit.
Another argument raised by the appellants was that they could only be made liable for possessing counterfeit currency notes under Section 489C but not for using them under Section 489B.
However, relying upon the decisions in Narendra Prasad v. State of West Bengal (2017) and Jubeda Chitrakar @ Jaba v. State of West Bengal (2020), it was argued by the CBI that possession of a sizeable quantity of counterfeit currency notes would only lead to an irresistible conclusion amounting to the trafficking of counterfeit currency notes.
In the facts of the case, the Court stated that the appellants had not offered any explanation for the possession of a bulk quantity of counterfeit currency notes. It stated that the appellants hatched a conspiracy for the trafficking of counterfeit currency notes.
It said, “It can be said to be that the acts committed by the appellants amounted to trafficking of counterfeit currency notes, which is punishable under Section 489B of the IPC. The conspiracy hatched by the appellants in order for such an act is also evident from the way in which they possessed the currency notes”. As such, the Court upheld the conviction of the Trial Court under Sections 120B, 489B and 489C of the IPC.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the term of imprisonment imposed under Sections 120 B and 489B from ten years of rigorous imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. it also confirmed the sentence imposed under Section 489 C of the IPC.
Counsel for petitioners: T U Sujith Kumar, V J Jayakumar Abraham, R Sunil Kumar, R Gopan
Counsel for respondents: Senior Advocate Dr. K P Satheesan, Advocates Gokul D Sudhakaran and Bharath Mohan appeared for CBI, Public Prosecutor Seena C
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 192
Case title: MD. Kamirul Islam v CBI
Case number: CRL.APPEAL NO. 845 OF 2020