Counterfeit Currency Conviction: Uncorroborated customs statements cannot sustain trafficking charge, but proved possession upholds liability.

A conviction for trafficking or using counterfeit currency cannot rest solely on uncorroborated statements recorded under customs inquiry powers; independent evidence linking the accused to sale, purchase, receipt, or movement of fake currency is required, and the conviction under Section 489B IPC was therefore set aside. By contrast, where raiding and public witnesses proved recovery of counterfeit notes from the accused and the expert report confirmed the notes were fake, possession was established beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction under Section 489C IPC was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for using or trafficking in counterfeit currency under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained on the basis of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 without independent corroboration. (ii) Whether the conviction under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code for possession of counterfeit currency was liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for using or trafficking in counterfeit currency under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained on the basis of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 without independent corroboration.

Analysis: The prosecution relied principally on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to link the accused with the source and movement of fake currency. The Court found that the alleged role of the named intermediary was not supported by any independent witness, documentary material, or investigative step showing further proof of trafficking. The evidence on record established recovery of counterfeit currency, but did not establish sale, purchase, receipt, or trafficking so as to attract Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code merely from the confessional statements. In the absence of corroboration, the statements under Section 108 could not by themselves form the foundation of guilt for this offence.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 489B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code for possession of counterfeit currency was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The evidence of the raiding witnesses and public witnesses consistently established recovery of counterfeit currency from the accused persons, and the expert report confirmed that the seized notes were counterfeit. The seizure from the possession of the accused was not displaced in cross-examination. Since possession of counterfeit currency was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the ingredients of Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 489C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the conviction for trafficking or using counterfeit currency, while the conviction and sentence for possession of counterfeit currency were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for trafficking in counterfeit currency cannot rest solely on uncorroborated confessional statements recorded under customs inquiry powers, but proved possession of counterfeit currency is sufficient to sustain liability under the possession offence.

---