Kolkata: A larger bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that the seizure of a large quantity of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) from an individual does not by itself amount to trafficking, and that courts must rely only on statutory ingredients and proven facts before drawing such a conclusion.
The bench comprising Justices Tirthankar Ghosh, Debangsu Basak and Jay Sengupta held that the quantity or quality of counterfeit notes recovered is “immaterial” for the purpose of presuming trafficking under Section 489B IPC unless the prosecution first proves foundational facts relating to the ingredients of the offence.
The reference before the bench arose from several appeals where common questions of law were involved, including whether presumptions can be drawn from bulk FICN recoveries, recoveries from members of police, CISF or defence forces, or recoveries of high-quality counterfeit notes certified by experts.
The court said that merely finding a substantial amount of counterfeit notes does not automatically establish trafficking; only when credible evidence shows active transportation or movement can such a conclusion follow.
The bench clarified that trial courts must frame specific and distinct charges under Section 489B so that the accused is clearly informed of the allegation. Without proper charge-framing, the offence cannot be said to be proved.
It further held that it is the prosecution’s duty to establish the essential ingredients of the offence before any adverse inference can be drawn. Only after the prosecution proves foundational facts can the accused be expected to explain circumstances within his special knowledge during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. In such cases, “mere silence” may become a relevant circumstance.
The court stated that these principles apply uniformly to all persons, whether civilians or government/security personnel, and no presumption of trafficking arises solely because the individual is part of police or armed forces.
On expert certification of notes as “high-quality” counterfeit, the bench held that such classification does not independently attract Section 489B. It observed that unless proper charges are framed and statutory requirements, including sanction where relevant, are met, the nature of the counterfeit notes does not change the legal test.
The court directed that all connected appeals and revisional applications be decided individually by the respective benches in light of the conclusions recorded in the reference judgment.