Mere Discrepancy in Counting of Seized Notes cannot Discredit Recovery of Counterfeit Currency: Delhi HC Upholds Conviction [Read Order]

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court ruled that a minor mistake in counting seized currency notes cannot be a ground to doubt the recovery of counterfeit money. The Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code.

This matter related to the recovery of fake Indian currency notes at IGI Airport, New Delhi.

The accused, Kulwant Rai arrived from Bangkok and Customs officers searched him for suspicious behavior and found counterfeit currency worth Rs. 6,01,500 hidden in his socks. A seizure memo was prepared at the spot in the presence of independent witnesses.

During the investigation, the accused’s statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. He stated that the currency was given to him in Bangkok by another person and that he had hidden the notes on that person’s instructions. The seized notes were sent to the Bank Note Press in Dewas, which confirmed that the notes were fake. Some minor differences were found in the counting and serial numbers of the notes.

The trial court acquitted the accused mainly because of these differences, holding that they created doubt about the recovery.

Before the High Court, the CBI's counsel argued that the recovery was clearly proved by the statements of Customs officers and independent witnesses. The counsel argued that the counting mistakes were minor and occurred due to human error. They also argued that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was voluntary, legally valid, and supported the prosecution case.

The Bench comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the sealed packets of seized currency remained intact at all stages and there was no sign of tampering. The court explained that small counting or serial number mistakes cannot cancel out the recovery of a large amount of fake currency when expert evidence clearly showed that the notes were counterfeit.

The court also observed that the accused’s statement under Section 108 of theCustoms Act was admissible in evidence and was never withdrawn. It was voluntary and supported by other facts on record.

The court agreed that there was no proof that the accused was involved in trading or circulating fake currency under Section 489B IPC. However, it pointed out that possession of counterfeit currency under Section 489C IPC was clearly proved.

The court partly set aside the acquittal and upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 489C IPC. The case was listed separately for hearing on the question of sentence, and the appeal was disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates