Conviction for conspiring to traffic counterfeit currency upheld, but sentence reduced to time served.

The appellant, accused No. 2, was convicted by the Special NIA Court under Sections 489B read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine.

The prosecution alleged that he had paid accused No. 1, Vinod Nishad, to obtain counterfeit currency for circulation; Nishad was intercepted carrying 100 counterfeit ₹2,000 notes worth ₹2,00,000, while the appellant was not found with any notes.

The prosecution relied on bank transfers from the appellant to Nishad and Nishad’s wife, call-detail records, their prior acquaintance in jail, and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

The appellant appealed, disputing proof of the conspiracy and seeking, alternatively, reduction of his sentence. At the time of appeal, he had served 4 years, 8 months and 25 days.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant conspired with accused No. 1 and the wanted accused to circulate counterfeit currency, thereby establishing his guilt under Sections 489B read with 120B IPC.

2. Whether the appellant’s seven-year sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, notwithstanding that the conviction was to be upheld.

Section 489B IPC penalises selling, buying, receiving, trafficking in, or using counterfeit currency as genuine, with knowledge or reason to believe it is counterfeit.

Under Sections 120A and 120B IPC, criminal conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or an act by illegal means; where the alleged agreement is to commit an offence, it may be proved by circumstantial rather than direct evidence, provided the circumstances are established and corroborate one another.

The appeal was brought under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act.

The Court accepted that the counterfeit notes were recovered from Nishad, not the appellant, and that the FSL had confirmed their counterfeit nature.

It nevertheless found the appellant’s participation established by the bank transfers to Nishad and his wife, the CDR evidence showing communication among the appellant, Nishad and the wanted accused, their prior acquaintance in jail, the appellant’s arrival at the station, and the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

Viewed cumulatively, these circumstances supported the prosecution’s case that the appellant had paid for the notes and came to receive them, proving the conspiracy and the offence under Section 489B read with Section 120B IPC.

On sentence, the Court considered the appellant’s role, the fact that he was not found in possession of the notes, and the substantial period already served, and reduced the custodial sentence accordingly.

The conviction under Section 489B read with Section 120B IPC was confirmed, but the seven-year term of imprisonment was modified so that the sentence already undergone would be treated as the sentence imposed.

The Court directed the appellant’s release forthwith if his custody was not required in another case; the fine was not expressly modified in the operative order.