Minor Counting Discrepancies Do Not Vitiate Counterfeit Currency Recovery: Delhi High Court Allows CBI Appeal, Sets Aside Acquittal
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside the acquittal of an accused in a counterfeit currency case, holding that minor discrepancies in counting seized fake notes do not, by themselves, undermine the prosecution when recovery and conscious possession are otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt. Allowing the CBI’s appeal, the Court reversed the trial court’s judgment that had cleared the respondent-accused of the offence relating to possession of counterfeit currency notes, after a recovery at the airport of bundles of suspected notes concealed on his person and later confirmed as counterfeit by expert examination. The Court convicted the respondent-accused for the possession offence and directed that the matter be listed for arguments on sentence.
The case arose from the interception of an international passenger by customs officials upon arrival from a foreign country. During personal search, a large quantity of Indian currency notes was recovered from concealment in the socks worn by the accused. Preliminary verification at the airport indicated that the notes were not genuine, following which the currency was seized under a panchnama in the presence of independent witnesses.
The seized notes were sealed and subsequently handed over to the investigating agency, which forwarded them to the Bank Note Press for expert examination. During examination, discrepancies were noted in the total number of notes and certain serial numbers. With court permission, the sealed packet was reopened for recounting and resealed before being sent again for expert opinion. The expert report confirmed that the notes were counterfeit.
The prosecution relied on the testimonies of customs officials, independent panch witnesses, bank officials, the expert witness from the Bank Note Press, and the investigating officer, along with a statement recorded from the accused under the Customs Act. The trial court acquitted the accused by granting the benefit of doubt on account of discrepancies in counting and serial numbers, leading to the present appeal.
The Court noted that “the testimony of all these witnesses is consistent about the recovery of FICNs from the Respondent, Kulwant Rai.” It observed that “the ocular testimony of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the Statement under Section 108 Customs Act.”
On the evidentiary value of the statement recorded under the Customs Act, the Court recorded that “there is no tangible evidence either by way of cross-examination of the material witnesses or otherwise which has been led to even cast a slightest doubt on the genuineness of the Statement recorded under Section 108 Customs Act.”
The Court further noted that “pertinently, this Statement under Section 108 Customs Act was never retracted by the Respondent.” While dealing with the discrepancies in counting and serial numbers, the Court observed that “the case property had been sealed on the spot with the Custom Seal No. ‘6’ and the seal was found to be intact on the packet.”
It further recorded that “it has established beyond reasonable doubt that the seized notes were sent in the sealed packet and there was no tampering in the transit.” On the approach adopted by the trial court, the Court stated that “the Ld. Trial Court, therefore, fell in error in disbelieving the entire case of the Prosecution, despite there being overwhelming evidence establishing the guilt of the Respondent, beyond reasonable doubt.”
With respect to the charge of trafficking, the Court observed that “there is no evidence whatsoever to show that he had sold, bought, received or otherwise trafficked in the counterfeit currency notes.”
The Court recorded that “this court is conscious that the judgement of acquittal should not be easily disturbed in appeal, but this is a case where there is overwhelming evidence against the Respondent for the offence under Section 489(C) IPC.”
“The Respondent is convicted for the said offence under Section 489(C) IPC. The Appeal, along with pending Application(s), if any, is accordingly disposed of. List for arguments on Sentence on 16.01.2026, in the supplementary list.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor, with Mr. Mohd. Changez Ali Khan, Advocate
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kulwant Rai
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:40
Case Number: CRL.A. 1147/2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
