Chattisgarh High Court
Raju Alias Ranjeet Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
CGHC010133232026 2026:CGHC:28855-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 940 of 2026
Shobhnath Toppo S/o Shri Tejaram Toppo Aged About 34 Years R/o Tanki
Dafai, Ward No. 15, P.S. Manendragarh, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Jhagrakhand,
Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.R.Soni, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate.
CRA No. 921 of 2026
Raju Alias Ranjeet Kashyap S/o Late Narendra Kashyap Aged About 46 Years
R/o Ward No.3 Dafai No-1 North Jhagrakhand Police Station Jhagrakhand
Police Station Jhagrakhand District- Koriya Chhattisgarh,
—Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Police Police
Station – Jhagrakhand District- Koriya Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate.
2
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
10/07/2026
1. Heard Mr. R.R.Soni and Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel appearing
for the respective appellants. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned
Government Advocate for the State/respondent.
2. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 21(1) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is to the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 11.03.2026 passed in Special Criminal Case
No. 28/2024 by the learned Special Judge (NIA) (Ambikapur) District
Surguja, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as
under:
Conviction Jail Sentence Fine Default Jail
under Section (Rigorous) Sentence (Simple)
Appellant-Raju @ Ranjeet Kashyap
420 of the IPC 1 Year Rs. 1000/- 3 months
489(B) of the IPC 4 Years Rs. 5000/- 1 Year
489(C) of the IPC 4 Years Rs. 1000/- 3 Months
Appellant-Shobhnath Toppo
489(C) of the IPC 4 Years Rs. 5000/- 1 Year
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Sarita Kenwat,
appeared before Police Station Jhagrakhand, District Korea, and
submitted a written complaint (Exhibit P-1), stating that she had been
working as a labourer at the shop of Raju Kashyap for some time. On
15.09.2019, as she was in need of money, she went to the appellant-
Raju Kashyap to collect her wages. Raju Kashyap paid her ten currency
notes of ₹100 denomination each. In the evening, she went to the shop
of Sushil, a resident of Jhagrakhand, to purchase some goods. She
tendered one of the ₹100 notes given by Raju Kashyap, and after
3
deducting the price of the purchased goods, the shopkeeper returned
the balance amount to her. On the next day, at about 8:00 p.m., Sushil
came to her house and informed her that the ₹100 note with which she
had purchased the goods was counterfeit. He returned the said note to
her and advised her to lodge a report at the Police Station. On the basis
of the said written complaint (Exhibit P-1) submitted by complainant
Sarita Kenwat, Crime No. 124/2019 was registered at Police Station
Jhagrakhand under Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code (Exhibit P-
22), and investigation was commenced. During the course of
investigation, the ten currency notes of ₹100 denomination given to the
complainant were seized vide seizure memo Exhibit P-3. Likewise,
pursuant to the memorandum statement of accused Raju @ Ranjeet
(Exhibit P-6), thirteen counterfeit currency notes were seized at his
instance vide Exhibit P-8. Further, as the accused Ranjit Kumar, in his
memorandum statement, disclosed the name of Shobhnath, the latter,
who had already been arrested in another case, was arrested in the
present case after obtaining permission from the Court, and one day’s
police remand was obtained. His memorandum statement was recorded
vide Exhibit P-7, and pursuant thereto, 100 counterfeit currency notes of
₹100 denomination each were seized under Exhibit P-9. The place of
occurrence was inspected and the spot map was prepared (Exhibit P-2).
The seized counterfeit currency notes were forwarded for examination to
the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khongapani, along with
forwarding letter (Exhibit P-11), from whom the examination report
(Exhibit P-15) was received. The seized counterfeit currency notes were
also sent for examination through the Superintendent of Police,
Baikunthpur, by application (Exhibit P-20) to the Director, Currency Note
Press, Dewas (Madhya Pradesh), from whom the examination report
4
(Exhibit P-21) was received. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
After completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted
before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh,
District Korea, for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B read
with Section 34, 489-C and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, registered the case as Criminal
Case No. 24/2020. Since the case was triable by the Court of Session, it
was committed to the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Manendragarh, District Korea, vide committal order dated 17.03.2020.
Subsequently, in view of the notification of the State Government dated
24.09.2024 and the endorsement of the High Court of Chhattisgarh
dated 26.09.2024, whereby the learned trial Court was notified as an NIA
Court, the present case was transferred from the Bilaspur to Surguja
(Ambikapur) and upon receipt, it was registered as a Special Criminal
Case (NIA) and trial was commenced.
4. Charges were framed on 21.10.2022, by the then learned Special Judge
(NIA), Bilaspur, against accused Raju @ Ranjit Kashyap for the offences
punishable under Sections 489-C, 420 and 489-B of the IPC, and
against accused Shobhnath Toppo for the offence punishable under
Section 489-C of the IPC. The accused denied the prosecution
allegations, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. They also
expressed their intention to adduce defence evidence. Accordingly, on
behalf of accused Raju @ Ranjit, Sampat Kenwat (D.W.-1) was
examined as a defence witness.
5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as
12 witnesses, namely, Sarita Kenwat (P.W.-1), Sushil Kumar (P.W.-2),
Doodhnath (P.W.-3), Jai Kumar Rahi (P.W.-4), Arun Avinash Minj (P.W.-
5
5), Manager P.B. Gupta (P.W.-6), Head Constable Shambhunath Yadav
(P.W.-7), Rajendra Pandey (P.W.-8), Head Constable Danish Sheikh
(P.W.-9), Head Constable Lalit Kumar Yadav (P.W.-10), Sub-Inspector
Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11), and Inspector Devendra Devangan
(P.W.-12) and exhibited as many as 23 exhibits.
6. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which either
they denied the questions or expressed their ignorance. They stated that
they had been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that they were
innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case.
7. The learned trial Court, after considering the statement of witnesses and
evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants/
accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence,
the present appeal by the appellants/convict.
8. Mr. R.R.Soni, learned counsel for the appellant-Shobhnath Toppo and
Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant-Raju @ Ranjeet
Kashyap submit that the appellants are innocent and they have been
falsely implicated in this case. The learned trial Court failed to properly
appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective
and has recorded a perverse finding against the appellants. The entire
prosecution case is based on conjectures and surmises and there is no
reliable evidence on record. The prosecution has not been able to prove
the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The defence version
has not been properly considered and has been rejected without
assigning any sufficient and cogent reasons. Dudhnath (PW-3) and
Jaykumar Rathi (PW-4) who are the witnesses related to memorandum
and seizure proceedings have not supported the case of the prosecution
on the point of memorandum and seizure from the appellant-Shobhnath
6
Toppo is doubtful. The appellant-Shobhnath was already in jail before
his arrest in the present case and he was taken on remand and after
taking permission of his arrest from the Court concerned and thereafter
his memorandum statement was recorded and 100 fake currency notes
were allegedly seized from almirah kept in his dwelling house. In so far
as the case of the prosecution on the point of seizure of 100 fake
currency notes from the appellant is concerned, there is no evidence on
record that the almirah and the dwelling house was in exclusive
possession of the appellant. As such, they pray that the appellants be
acquitted of the charges. In the alternative, it is prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to show some leniency towards the appellant-
Shobnath has served more than 2½ years of jail sentence and the
appellant-Raju @ Ranjeet Kashyap has served jail sentence of about 1
year and 4 months, and their sentences be reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents
submits that the trial Court was fully justified in convicting and
sentencing the convict/ appellant as mentioned in the opening
paragraph. There is ample evidence on record to hold the appellants
guilty of the offence. The order passed by the learned trial Court being
just and proper needs no interference and the appeal filed by the
convict/appellant deserves to be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
11.The complainant Kumari Sarita Kenwat (P.W.-1) deposed that she
worked as a domestic help and labourer for accused Raju @ Ranjeet,
7
whose wife was not residing with him. On the date of the incident, she
visited the accused’s house to collect her wages. Although she stated in
her examination-in-chief that she was paid Rs.1,400, her written
complaint (Ex.P-1) and her admission in paragraph 22 of cross-
examination establish that she had actually received Rs. 1,000 in ten
currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination, indicating that the reference to
Rs.1,400 was a bona fide mistake. She used one Rs.100 note to
purchase groceries from Sushil’s shop. Later, Sushil informed her that
when he tendered the same note at a petrol pump in Manendragarh, it
was found to be counterfeit, and advised her to lodge a police report
against the person who had paid her the notes. Thereafter, she
produced the remaining notes before the police and submitted a written
report (Ex. P-1), pursuant to which the spot map (Ex. P-2), seizure memo
of ten Rs. 100 notes (Ex. P-3), and identification memorandum (Ex. P-4)
were prepared. She further stated that accused Shobhnath Toppo
frequently visited Raju @ Ranjeet and used to supply him with a large
number of currency notes. During cross-examination, she admitted
having stated before the police that all the notes bore the same serial
number. In paragraph 24 of her cross-examination, she clarified that she
had not personally seen Sushil take the Rs.100 note to the petrol pump
and, therefore, could not say whether it was the same note; however,
she consistently maintained that Sushil later informed her that the note
given by her had been declared counterfeit.
12.During cross-examination, Sarita Kenwat (P.W.-1) admitted that she did
not remember the serial numbers of the counterfeit Rs.100 denomination
notes allegedly given by accused Raju @ Ranjeet. This admission
appears natural, as an ordinary person cannot be expected to remember
the serial numbers of currency notes. In her detailed cross-examination
8
from paragraph 35 onwards, she consistently narrates the sequence of
events without any material contradiction and denied the suggestion that
the notes produced before the police had been given to her by Sushil.
She also admitted that the name of accused Shobhnath Toppo was not
mentioned in her written complaint (Ex. P-1). This omission is not
material, as the prosecution case itself is that the involvement of
Shobhnath Toppo came to light subsequently on the basis of the
memorandum statement of co-accused Raju @ Ranjeet. Since Sarita
had no direct dealings with Shobhnath Toppo and her interaction was
confined to accused Raju @ Ranjeet, with whom she worked, the
omission to mention Shobhnath Toppo in the FIR does not affect her
credibility.
13.Sushil (P.W.-2) deposed that in 2019 he was running a grocery shop in
front of his house at Ward No. 3, Jhagarakhand, and admitted that he
knew complainant Sarita Kenwat. Although he did not give a clear
answer as to whether he had taken the Rs. 100 note received from
Sarita to the petrol pump and denied the remaining prosecution story, in
paragraph 11 of his deposition he unequivocally admitted that he had
written the complaint (Ex. P-1) on behalf of Sarita Kenwat. This
admission establishes that he was aware of the contents of the
complaint. Whether he wrote it at the instance of the Station House
Officer or on the instructions of Sarita Kenwat is immaterial; the
undisputed fact remains that Ex. P-1 was authored by him in his own
handwriting. Therefore, his subsequent denial of the prosecution case
does not, by itself, render the testimony of complainant Sarita Kenwat
unreliable.
9
14.Sushil (PW-2) deposed that he was a laboratory technician. He stated
that on 16.09.2019 the police came to Jhagarakhand along with Sarita
Kenwat and asked him to write the written complaint, explaining that
Sarita was illiterate and that a complaint written by the police would not
be acceptable. Accordingly, he wrote the application as instructed. He
also admitted that, by village relationship, Sarita addressed him as her
“Mama” (maternal uncle). Despite these admissions, he denied the
remaining contents of the complaint authored by him. Such conduct
indicates that he deliberately withheld the true facts from the Court.
Since he admittedly knew Sarita Kenwat, authored the written complaint
(Ex. P-1), and acknowledged that it was in his own handwriting, it is
reasonable to infer that he was aware of its contents. Therefore, his
subsequent attempt to resile from the prosecution case does not create
such a doubt as would undermine the prosecution version or render the
testimony of complainant Sarita Kenwat unreliable.
15.Inspector Devendra Devangan (P.W.-12) deposed that he was posted
as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Jhagarakhand, District Korea, from
September 2018 to October 2019. On 16.09.2019, complainant Kumari
Sarita Kenwat submitted a written complaint (Ex. P-1) alleging that
accused Raju @ Ranjeet had paid her wages of Rs. 1,000 in ten
counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination, all bearing the same
serial number. On the basis of the complaint, he registered Crime No.
124/2019 under Section 489-B IPC (Ex. P-22), forwarded the FIR to the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, and obtained
acknowledgment (Ex. P-22A). On the same day, he issued a notice to
the complainant (Ex. P-23) directing her to produce the currency notes,
conducted a spot inspection, and prepared the spot map (Ex. P-2). He
seized ten Rs.100 denomination notes, all bearing the identical serial
10
number 3WN805048, under seizure memo (Ex. P-3), and thereafter
prepared the identification memorandum (Ex. P-4) after getting the notes
identified by Sushil Kumar and Rajesh Pandey. The witness further
stated that, for verification of the seized notes, he sent a requisition to the
Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khongapani Branch (Ex. P-11).
After examination, the Branch Manager returned the notes in a sealed
brown envelope through Constable Lalit Yadav, which he seized under
seizure memo (Ex. P-15). During cross-examination, he denied the
suggestions that the FIR had not been forwarded to the Court or that
Sarita Kenwat had not mentioned the serial number of the currency
notes in her statement. His testimony remained consistent and duly
supports the investigation conducted by him.
16.Rajesh Pandey (P.W.-8) admitted that the police had obtained his
signatures on the seizure memo (Ex. P-3) and the identification
memorandum (Ex. P-4), but claimed that he had signed blank papers.
During cross-examination by the prosecution, however, he conceded
that he was aware that one should not sign blank papers.
17.Head Constable No. 66, Lalit Yadav (P.W.-10), corroborated the
testimony of Investigating Officer Devendra Devangan (P.W.-12). He
deposed that on 16.09.2019, while posted at Police Station
Jhagarakhand, he collected from the State Bank of India, Khongapani
Branch, a sealed brown envelope containing ten counterfeit Rs. 100
denomination currency notes and delivered it to the Investigating Officer,
who seized it under seizure memo (Ex. P-15). During cross-examination,
he admitted that the envelope had not been sealed in his presence but
denied the suggestion that he was unaware of its contents. He clarified
that the bank officials had placed the currency notes in the envelope and
11
that these were the same notes which had been forwarded by the
Investigating Officer to the Branch Manager for examination pursuant to
the requisition (Ex. P-11). His testimony lends assurance to the
prosecution case regarding the safe custody and transmission of the
seized currency notes. After the seizure of the ten Rs. 100 denomination
currency notes, the Investigating Officer forwarded them to the Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Khongapani Branch, for examination
under requisition (Ex. P-11). Arun Avinash Minj (P.W.-5) deposed that
while serving as Branch Manager from June 2018 to June 2021, he
received, on 16.09.2019, a sealed packet containing ten Rs. 100
denomination notes, all bearing the identical serial number 3WN805048.
After opening the sealed packet, he examined the notes with the aid of a
currency verification machine and found them, prima facie, to be
counterfeit. He thereafter resealed the notes and handed them over to
the police constable along with his examination report (Ex. P-12), which
bears his signatures and the official seal of the bank.
18.During cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was not a
forensic expert in counterfeit currency detection. However, he clarified
that, as Branch Manager, he routinely examined suspected counterfeit
notes using an ultraviolet lamp and other verification methods prescribed
by the Reserve Bank of India, and regularly received RBI guidelines for
identifying counterfeit currency. He also denied the suggestion that the
notes had been produced before him in an unsealed condition. His
testimony establishes that the seized notes, allegedly paid by accused
Raju @ Ranjeet to Sarita Kenwat as wages, were found by the bank to
be prima facie counterfeit.
12
19.The sealed envelope containing the ten Rs. 100 denomination currency
notes, which Head Constable Lalit Kumar Yadav (P.W.-10) brought from
the State Bank of India after examination of the notes, was seized by the
Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Devendra Devangan (P.W.-12),
under seizure memo (Ex. P-15) in the presence of Head Constable
Shambhunath Yadav (P.W.-7) and Head Constable Danish Sheikh
(P.W.-9). Both attesting witnesses have duly corroborated the seizure
proceedings, thereby lending assurance to the prosecution case
regarding the safe custody and continuity of possession of the seized
counterfeit currency notes.
20.After the initial investigation by Devendra Devangan (P.W.-12), the case
was transferred to Sub-Inspector Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11), who
continued the investigation upon his posting at Police Station
Jhagarakhand from November 2019 to June 2020. He deposed that,
after receiving the case diary, he apprehended accused Raju @ Ranjeet
on 07.12.2019 and recorded his memorandum statement (Ex. P-6) in the
presence of witnesses. According to the memorandum, the accused
disclosed that co-accused Shobhnath Toppo had paid him Rs.10,000 for
establishing an idli-dosa stall at his hotel. Out of this amount, he had
paid Rs. 1,000 to Sarita Kenwat towards wages. After Sarita informed
him that the notes were counterfeit, he checked the remaining currency
notes and found that thirteen Rs. 100 denomination notes were also
counterfeit. He further disclosed that these thirteen notes had been
concealed in a cupboard at his house. Acting on the information
furnished by the accused, the Investigating Officer recovered thirteen
Rs.100 denomination currency notes from the cupboard in the accused’s
house on 07.12.2019. All the notes bore the identical serial number
3WN805048. The notes were seized under seizure memo (Ex. P-8),
13
which bears the signatures of both the Investigating Officer and the
accused. Thereafter, the accused was formally arrested under arrest
memo (Ex. P-10), and intimation of his arrest was given to his wife,
Rashmi Kashyap. The recovery pursuant to the memorandum statement
constitutes a significant incriminating circumstance against the accused.
21.Sub-Inspector Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11) further deposed that, as
accused, Shobhnath Toppo was already in judicial custody in another
case, he moved an application (Ex. P-17) before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Manendragarh, on 27.12.2019 seeking permission to arrest
him in the present case. Pursuant to the permission granted, he arrested
Shobhnath Toppo under arrest memo (Ex. P-18) in the presence of
witnesses and informed his mother, Hanari Toppo, of the arrest through
intimation memo (Ex. P-19). The witness further stated that on
31.12.2019, while in police custody, accused Shobhnath Toppo was
interrogated and his memorandum statement (Ex. P-7) was recorded.
According to the disclosure made by the accused, he had met one Ajay
Patel at Anuppur Railway Station, who claimed to deal in counterfeit
currency and offered to supply Rs. 1,00,000 in counterfeit notes in
exchange for Rs. 20,000 in genuine currency. Lured by the offer,
Shobhnath allegedly paid Rs. 5,000 in genuine currency and, in return,
received counterfeit currency notes worth Rs. 20,000, all in Rs.100
denomination. He further disclosed that, out of this amount, he had given
Rs. 10,000 to Raju Kashyap, which included counterfeit notes worth Rs.
2,300 mixed with genuine currency. After learning that a criminal case
had been registered against Raju Kashyap, he threw away some of the
counterfeit notes and concealed the remaining counterfeit currency
worth Rs. 10,000 in the cupboard of his house.
14
22.Acting on the disclosure made by accused Shobhnath Toppo, the
Investigating Officer took him to his house on 31.12.2019, where the
accused produced the concealed currency notes from a cupboard. The
Investigating Officer seized the recovered notes under seizure memo
(Ex. P-9), comprising: (i) 96 currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination, all
bearing the identical serial number 9LM554703; (ii) 2 currency notes of
Rs. 100 denomination, both bearing the identical serial number
3WN805048; (iii) one Rs. 100 denomination note bearing serial number
OKS340135; and (iv) one Rs. 100 denomination note bearing serial
number 2FL988754.
23.During his cross-examination on 26.09.2025, Vivek Kumar Khalkho
(P.W.-11) was questioned as to where accused Shobhnath Toppo had
remained between his formal arrest on 27.12.2019 and the recording of
his memorandum statement on 31.12.2019, to which the witness replied
that he did not remember. However, during his further examination and
cross-examination on 24.02.2026, he clarified that after formally
arresting Shobhnath on 27.12.2019, he had moved an application before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chirmiri, on 30.12.2019 seeking a
production warrant and one day’s police custody for the purpose of
interrogation and recording the accused’s memorandum statement. The
Court allowed the application and granted police custody from
30.12.2019 to 31.12.2019. Pursuant to the said order, the accused was
interrogated on 31.12.2019 in the presence of witnesses, his
memorandum statement (Ex. P-7) was recorded, and the recovery and
seizure of the currency notes were effected under seizure memo (Ex. P-
9). This explanation satisfactorily clarifies the circumstances in which the
memorandum statement and consequential recovery were made.
15
24.The testimony of Investigating Officer Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11)
satisfactorily explains the period between the formal arrest of accused
Shobhnath Toppo on 27.12.2019 and the recording of his memorandum
statement on 31.12.2019. It is evident that during this period the
accused remained in judicial custody in another criminal case. Only after
obtaining one day’s police custody pursuant to the order of the
competent Court did the Investigating Officer interrogate the accused,
record his memorandum statement (Ex. P-7), and effect the recovery
and seizure of the currency notes under seizure memo (Ex. P-9).
25.In paragraph 19 of his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer
clarified that the documents relating to the grant of police custody were
part of the case record, a fact which stands verified from the record of
the case. The record further shows that the application filed by the Public
Prosecutor under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
recalling the Investigating Officer was allowed on 13.02.2026, pursuant
to which he was recalled and his additional evidence was recorded on
24.02.2026 to clarify this aspect. The Investigating Officer also explained
that accused Shobhnath Toppo had already been arrested and was in
judicial custody in Crime No. 160/2019 registered at Police Station
Manendragarh under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC.
Consequently, it was necessary to obtain permission from the Court
through application (Ex. P-17) before effecting his arrest in the present
case. These circumstances clearly establish that the accused was never
kept in illegal custody and that the memorandum statement and the
consequential recovery were recorded in accordance with law.
26.Doodhnath (PW-3) and Jai Kumar Rahi (PW-4), who were cited as
witnesses to the memorandum statements (Ex. P-6 and P-7) and the
16
seizure memos (Exs. P-8 and P-9), did not support the prosecution. Both
denied that the police had interrogated accused Raju @ Ranjeet and
Shobhnath Toppo in their presence or that any currency notes had been
recovered from either accused in their presence. They also denied
having witnessed the seizure of the counterfeit currency. However, the
mere fact that these independent witnesses turned hostile does not, by
itself, render the prosecution case doubtful. It is common experience that
witnesses to recovery proceedings often sign the relevant documents at
the time of investigation but subsequently resile from their earlier position
during trial. Significantly, there is no material to show that Sushil Kumar
(P.W.-2), Doodhnath (P.W.-3), or Jai Kumar Rahi (P.W.-4) had any prior
acquaintance with the investigating officers or any animosity towards the
accused which could suggest that they were deliberately chosen by the
police to falsely implicate them.
27.Further, the evidence of Investigating Officer Vivek Kumar Khalkho
(P.W.-11) shows that he had no prior knowledge of any connection
between accused Raju @ Ranjeet and Shobhnath Toppo, nor of any
alleged possession of counterfeit currency by either of them. The
investigation commenced solely on the basis of the First Information
Report lodged by complainant Sarita Kenwat. It was only during the
interrogation of accused Raju @ Ranjeet that the involvement of
Shobhnath Toppo surfaced, following which the Investigating Officer
recorded their memorandum statements and recovered counterfeit
currency notes from their respective houses pursuant to the information
furnished by them. Thus, the hostility of the independent witnesses does
not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, discredit the otherwise
cogent evidence of the Investigating Officer regarding the recoveries.
17
28.The recovered currency notes were not seized from an open or
accessible place where anyone could have planted or accessed them.
They were recovered from concealed locations in the respective houses
of the accused pursuant to the information furnished by them. Therefore,
the mere fact that the independent witnesses did not support the
prosecution does not constitute a legally sustainable ground to discard
the recovery proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer in due
course of investigation. Investigating Officer Vivek Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-
11) further deposed that, on 26.12.2019, he forwarded the thirteen Rs.
100 denomination currency notes recovered from accused Raju
Kashyap to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khongapani
Branch, for examination under requisition (Ex. P-13).
29.P.B. Gupta (PW-6) stated that, while serving as the officiating Branch
Manager of the State Bank of India, Khongapani Branch, from
23.12.2019 to 03.01.2020, he received a sealed envelope containing
thirteen Rs. 100 denomination currency notes, all bearing the same
serial number, along with requisition (Ex. P-13). After examining the
notes with the bank’s currency verification machine, he found all thirteen
notes to be counterfeit. He made the necessary endorsement that the
notes should not be put into circulation, affixed his signatures and the
official bank seal, resealed the envelope, and returned it to the police
constable along with his report. He identified his signatures on Ex. P-13
and confirmed that the report recorded all thirteen notes as counterfeit.
The witness further deposed that, on 02.01.2020, he received another
sealed envelope from the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station
Jhagarakhand, under requisition (Ex. P-14), containing 100 currency
notes of Rs. 100 denomination each recovered from accused Shobhnath
Toppo. Of these, 96 notes bore the identical serial number 9LM554703,
18
2 notes bore the identical serial number 3WN805048, one note bore
serial number OKS340135, and one note bore serial number
2FL988754. After opening the sealed envelope and examining all the
notes with the bank’s currency verification machine, he found each of
them to be, prima facie, forged/counterfeit. His testimony provides
independent corroboration of the prosecution case regarding the
counterfeit nature of the currency recovered from both accused persons.
30.P.B. Gupta (PW-6) further deposed that, in his report (Ex. P-14), he
endorsed in portion A to A that all the currency notes examined by him
were counterfeit. He also recorded that the notes should not be put into
circulation, affixed his signatures in portion B to C, applied the official
bank seal in portion D to D, and thereafter resealed the currency notes
and the report in an envelope, which was handed over to the police
constable. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the
notes had been produced before him in an unsealed condition. He also
admitted that the currency notes had not been seized from accused Raju
@ Ranjeet in his presence, which is consistent with the prosecution
case, as he was only required to examine the notes after they had been
seized by the police.
31.The evidence on record clearly establishes two distinct recoveries. First,
complainant Sarita Kenwat (P.W.-1) consistently stated that accused
Raju @ Ranjeet had paid her wages in ten Rs. 100 denomination
currency notes, which were later found to be counterfeit. Since those
notes had already been handed over to Sarita, they were recovered from
her possession and examined by Arun Avinash Minj (PW-5), who found
them to be prima facie counterfeit. Secondly, during the course of
investigation, the police recovered thirteen Rs.100 denomination
19
currency notes from accused Raju @ Ranjeet and one hundred Rs.100
denomination currency notes from accused Shobhnath Toppo. These
recoveries were subsequently verified by P.B. Gupta (PW-6), who,
through his reports (Ex. P-13 and P-14), categorically opined that all the
notes produced before him appeared, prima facie, to be forged/
counterfeit. Consequently, the witness’s admission that the police had
not seized the notes in his presence does not in any manner detract from
the evidentiary value of his examination reports or the prosecution case.
32.In a case of the present nature, the burden squarely lies upon the
prosecution to establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that the
currency notes seized and alleged to be counterfeit were in fact
counterfeit. In discharge of this burden, Investigating Officer Vivek
Kumar Khalkho (P.W.-11) deposed that, for obtaining an expert opinion,
he forwarded all the seized currency notes to the Currency Note Press,
Dewas (Madhya Pradesh), through the Superintendent of Police,
Baikunthpur, vide letter dated 30.01.2020 (Ex. P-20), which was carried
by Constable No. 572, Balram Kenwat. Exhibit P-20 specifically records
that the articles forwarded for examination comprised ten Rs. 100
denomination notes seized from complainant Sarita Kenwat, thirteen Rs.
100 denomination notes seized from accused Raju @ Ranjeet, and one
hundred Rs. 100 denomination notes seized from accused Shobhnath
Toppo, along with their respective serial numbers. The Investigating
Officer further proved the expert report received from the Bank Note
Press, Dewas (Ex. P-21), consisting of three pages. The report states
that all 123 Rs.100 denomination currency notes forwarded for
examination were received in a sealed condition, examined by the
experts, and found to be counterfeit. The report specifically records that
the sealed packet was delivered by Constable No. 572, Balram Kenwat
20
of Police Station Jhagarakhand, District Korea, and that, after
examination, the notes were resealed and returned through the same
constable. The report also bears the specimen seal used during the
examination. Thus, apart from the prima facie verification conducted by
the officials of the State Bank of India, the prosecution has produced the
opinion of the Bank Note Press, Dewas, a Government scientific
institution, conclusively certifying that all the seized currency notes were
counterfeit. The report (Ex. P-21), being that of a Government scientific
expert within the meaning of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, is admissible in evidence and can be read without
examining the expert, unless the Court considers such examination
necessary. Consequently, the prosecution has satisfactorily discharged
its burden of proving that the currency notes seized in the present case
were, in fact, counterfeit.
33.Separate questions were put to both accused during their examinations
under Section 313 CrPC regarding the expert report of the Bank Note
Press, Dewas (Ex. P-21). Neither accused offered any plausible
explanation with respect to the report or the recovery of counterfeit
currency from their possession. Accused Raju @ Ranjeet admitted that
he knew complainant Sarita Kenwat and that she worked as a labourer,
though he denied that she performed domestic work at his house.
However, this denial stands contradicted by the testimony of his own
defence witness, Sampat Kenwat (DW-1), who is the real brother of the
complainant. Sampat deposed that Sarita had worked for about one
month at the house of accused Raju @ Ranjeet, that Raju had paid her
wages, and that when she used one of the currency notes at a grocery
shop, the shopkeeper informed her that it was counterfeit and returned it
to her. He further stated that Sarita thereafter lodged the report at the
21
police station. The witness also admitted that the currency note tendered
by Sarita at the grocery shop had been received by her from accused
Raju @ Ranjeet. Thus, the defence evidence itself materially
corroborates the prosecution case and the version set out in the written
complaint (Ex. P-1). The evidence on record, therefore, establishes that
the investigation commenced on the basis of the complaint lodged by
Sarita Kenwat. During investigation, the interrogation of accused Raju @
Ranjeet revealed the involvement of co-accused Shobhnath Toppo,
leading to the recovery of thirteen counterfeit Rs. 100 denomination
notes from Raju and one hundred such notes from Shobhnath. Together
with the ten counterfeit notes recovered from Sarita, a total of 123
currency notes were forwarded for expert examination and were
conclusively certified as counterfeit by the Bank Note Press, Dewas,
under report (Ex. P-21).
34.The accused were required to furnish a satisfactory explanation as to
how such a large quantity of counterfeit currency came into their
possession. They failed to do so. The prosecution has proved that
accused Shobhnath Toppo knowingly possessed counterfeit currency
and supplied a part of it to accused Raju @ Ranjeet for circulation as
genuine currency. It has further been proved that Raju @ Ranjeet
knowingly retained counterfeit currency in his possession and passed
ten counterfeit Rs.100 denomination notes to complainant Sarita Kenwat
towards payment of her wages, thereby representing them to be genuine
and inducing her to use them as genuine currency. His conduct clearly
amounts to using counterfeit currency as genuine and cheating the
complainant.
22
35.The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused
Raju @ Ranjeet knowingly possessed twenty-three counterfeit Rs.100
denomination currency notes and used ten of them as genuine by paying
them to Sarita Kenwat. The prosecution has likewise established that
accused Shobhnath Toppo knowingly possessed counterfeit currency,
supplied twenty-three such notes to Raju @ Ranjeet, and retained one
hundred counterfeit Rs.100 denomination notes with the intention that
they be used as genuine. Accordingly, the prosecution has succeeded in
proving the charges against both the appellants beyond reasonable
doubt and we find no error or illegality in the judgment of conviction
passed by the learned trial Court against the appellants herein.
36.Coming to the question of sentence, it is pertinent to note that under
Sections 420 and 489C of the IPC, the maximum punishment prescribed
is imprisonment for seven years along with fine, though no minimum
sentence has been prescribed. Likewise, under Section 489B of the IPC,
the punishment may extend to imprisonment for life, but no minimum
sentence has been stipulated. The appellant Shobnath has undergone
incarceration for more than two and a half years, whereas appellant Raju
@ Ranjeet Kashyap has remained in custody for about one year and
four months (including 363 days during trial and the period subsequent
to his conviction by the learned trial Court on 11.03.2026). Having regard
to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered
opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by reducing
the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to both the
appellants to the period already undergone by them. However,
considering the comparatively shorter period of incarceration undergone
by appellant Raju @ Ranjeet Kashyap, while maintaining the fine and
default sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, we deem it
23
appropriate to enhance the fine payable by him by a further sum of
Rs.10,000/-.
37.Since the appellants-Shobhnath Toppo and Raju @ Ranjeet
Kashyap are stated to be in custody, they shall be released forthwith, if
not required in connection with any other case, subject to deposit/
payment of the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court and the
additional fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed upon appellant-Raju @ Ranjeet
Kashyap by this Court, and in default of payment of the said additional
fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
38.The appeals are accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
39.Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be
transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information
and action, if any.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
Digitally signed
by AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2026.07.16
15:25:33 +0530
