'No Iota Of Evidence': Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Man Accused Of Counterfeiting Currency Worth ₹2000 In 1995

The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Rajendra Sareen concluded that no incriminating evidence was available against the Accused and that merely based on a Transfer Warrant, the Accused had been implicated in the case.

The instant Appeal was preferred by the State of Gujarat from an order of Sessions Judge acquitting the Accused for offences under Sec 489A (Counterfeiting currency-notes or bank-notes), 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 IPC.

The Prosecution's case was that the owner of Prabhat Saw Mill had visited the Bank for depositing Rs. 25,000 in Bank of Baroda and had placed notes of Rs. 100 and 50 for the same. The cashier doubted 20 notes of Rs. 100 for a total of Rs. 2000. Upon checking, it was revealed that the notes were counterfeit and consequently, the notes were seized and a complaint was filed. Subsequent to the investigation, the IO found the involvement of the Respondent-Accused. Thereafter, upon receipt of a Fax message, the Accused was arrested on the basis of a Transfer Warrant.

To bring home the charges, the Prosecution examined several witnesses and presented documentary evidence even as the Respondent denied all incriminating circumstances.

The Bench noted that the prosecution case was supported by the deposition of the IO and other police officers who carried out the investigation and had found the same serial numbers on the counterfeit notes in as those messaged in the Fax Message. However, no other incriminating evidence was available to connect the Accused with the offence.

The Bench cautioned that in acquittal appeals, the prejudice was in favour of the Accused. It concluded that there was no evidence that the Accused had handed over these notes in some transaction which reached the owner of the Mill. In the complaint of the Bank Manager, as well, no case was made out against the Accused. Notably, in the initial stage of investigation, nobody was found to be the culprit and the case was shut down by filing 'A' summary. Only after the Fax Message in 1996, was the Respondent arraigned as an Accused.

The Bench averred:

"The prosecution has not been able to prove the presence of the present accused in Palanpur. No business transaction with the PW No.1 has been proved. No material is found in the present offence from the respondent accuse which can relate the respondent accused with the present offence. Merely on the basis of Transfer Warrant, the accused has been implicate in this case."

Keeping in view these facts, the Bench affirmed the order of acquittal of the Sessions Court.

Case No.: R/CR.A/382/1997

Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT v/s RAIB JUSAB SAMA MUSALMAN

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 284

Click Here To Read/Download Order