Minor Discrepancies In Counting Can't Discredit Seizure Of Fake Currency: Delhi High Court Allows CBI Appeal, Reverses Acquittal
The Delhi High Court has set aside the acquittal of an accused in a counterfeit currency case, holding that minor discrepancies in counting fake currency notes are not sufficient to discredit the prosecution case when the recovery and possession are otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt.Allowing CBI's appeal, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reversed the trial court's judgment which had...
The Delhi High Court has set aside the acquittal of an accused in a counterfeit currency case, holding that minor discrepancies in counting fake currency notes are not sufficient to discredit the prosecution case when the recovery and possession are otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Allowing CBI's appeal, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reversed the trial court's judgment which had acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 489C of the IPC relating to possession of counterfeit currency notes.
The bench observed,
“The error in counting the FICNs and shortfall of one note in the denomination of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- each, was due to human error, and cannot be considered as a ground to disbelieve the recovery itself. It has also not been appreciated that this discrepancy in the counting of notes, had been mentioned in the Chargesheet itself. Furthermore, the Statement of the Respondent under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein he admitted his guilt, has also not been considered.”
The prosecution case was that a large number of fake Indian currency notes were recovered from the accused, following which he was prosecuted.
The trial court, however, extended the benefit of doubt to the accused primarily on the ground that there were inconsistencies in the exact count of the recovered notes as reflected in different documents and testimonies.
Disagreeing, the High Court observed that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, and had placed undue emphasis on insignificant inconsistencies while ignoring the overall chain of circumstances proving the offence.
It noted that voluntary Statement of the Respondent-accused was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he admitted to possession of fake currency. In this regard the Court held,
“a statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act before a Customs Officer is admissible in evidence and can be used against the maker. The object of Section 108(b) is to elicit the truth in such cases. While recording such a statement, the Customs Officer is required to act fairly and judiciously, ensuring all procedural safeguards, so that the statement meets the minimum judicial standards and principles of natural justice.”
Reliance was placed on Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008), where the Supreme Court held that Section 108 enables a Custom Officer to elicit the truth from a person examined.
“The underlying object of Section 108 is to ensure that the Officer questioning a person gets all the truth concerning the incident. It does not amount to abuse of the process of law.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and convicted the Respondent under Section 489C IPC.
The matter is listed for hearing on the question of sentence on January 16.
Appearance: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP, CBI with Mr. Mohd. Changez Ali Khan, Advocate for Appellant
Case title: CBI v. Kukwant Rai
Case no.: CRL.A. 1147/2025