Case Background
The case started on 19 September 2015 when officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Patna received secret information about fake Indian currency notes (FICN) being carried in a passenger bus named Amar Jyoti, going through East Champaran district.
At around 1:20 pm that day, the DRI team intercepted the bus near Ramgarhwa Railway Crossing. During the search, they found one passenger, later identified as Afroz Ansari, sitting on seat no. 19 with a black bag. In the presence of the bus driver and conductor, and after giving a notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, officers opened the bag.
Inside, they found twelve bundles of suspected fake notes: 1,188 notes of ₹500 denomination, totalling ₹5,94,000, wrapped in a green lungi. They also seized Afroz’s bus ticket, Aadhaar card, PAN card, ATM cards, bank passbook and mobile phone. A seizure memo was prepared on the spot and Afroz was taken to the DRI office at Muzaffarpur, where the currency was again counted and inventoried.
The Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna later certified that the seized notes were high-quality counterfeit. The DRI registered Case No. 17/2015-16 the same day and produced Afroz before the Court of Economic Offences, Muzaffarpur, under Section 104 of the Customs Act.
Afroz’s statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. In this, he allegedly admitted that he was carrying the fake notes on the instruction of his brother-in-law Sunny Kumar @ Kabir Khan, to deliver them at Raxaul, and that Kabir Khan had brought the notes from across the Bangladesh border.
On 16 December 2015, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, by order No. 11034/109/2015-IS.IV, transferred the investigation to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. The NIA registered R.C. No. 15/2015/NIA/DLI on 23 December 2015 under Sections 489B and 489C IPC, later adding Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
During investigation, the NIA found that the seized FICN was part of a larger cross-border racket, involving several persons linked to operatives in Bangladesh. On 9 June 2016, acting on intelligence, NIA officers apprehended another accused, Alamgir Sheikh @ Raju, near Bettiah Bus Stand in West Champaran. From him they recovered 300 pieces of ₹1000 denomination FICN, totalling ₹3,00,000. This consignment was allegedly meant for one Munna Singh, with genuine money routed through the bank account of co-accused Ashikul Islam.
The role of Ashraful Alam @ Ishraful Alam @ Fatik, from Malda district in West Bengal, also surfaced. He was alleged to be a key supplier of FICN smuggled from Bangladesh. Sunny Kumar @ Kabir Khan of Nawada, Bihar, was identified as an active member of the smuggling and distribution network.
On 22 July 2016, NIA filed Charge-sheet No. 08/2016 against four accused — Afroz Ansari, Sunny Kumar @ Kabir Khan @ Sujit Kumar @ Kabir, Ashraful Alam @ Ishraful Alam @ Fatik, and Alamgir Sheikh @ Raju. They were charged under Sections 120B, 489B, 489C and 419 IPC and Sections 16, 18 and 20 UAPA.
The Special Judge, NIA, Patna took cognizance on 28 July 2016. Charges were framed on 18 March 2017 and trial started on 1 April 2017. The prosecution examined 68 witnesses, including DRI officers, NIA officials, independent seizure witnesses, forensic experts, telecom nodal officers, bank officials, approvers, and a protected witness. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC in July 2018 and denied all allegations.
On 5 October 2018, the Special Judge convicted all four. On 11 October 2018, each was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with fines under UAPA, and further sentences under the IPC, all to run concurrently. Against this judgment and order, the four accused filed separate criminal appeals before the Patna High Court, which heard them together and delivered its decision on 19 November 2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri (for the Bench also comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman), closely reviewed the evidence and the legal objections raised by the appellants.
The defence mainly argued that only Afroz and Alamgir were allegedly found with fake notes, and there was no direct recovery from Sunny @ Kabir Khan or Ashraful Alam. They said the case against these two rested only on a Section 108 Customs Act statement and the words of approvers and a protected witness, which were unreliable. They also challenged the recoveries, the use of forensic reports, call detail records, bank documents and the application of UAPA.
On the recovery from Afroz at Ramgarhwa, the Court relied on the clear and consistent testimony of PW-11 Dhirendra Kumar (DRI officer) and PW-22 Anubhav Kumar (Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI). Both described receiving secret information, stopping Amar Jyoti bus at about 1:20 pm on 19 September 2015, and seizing the black bag with fake notes from Afroz after issuing a Section 102 Customs Act notice.
Their evidence was supported by PW-25 Mukesh Singh, the bus driver, who confirmed that the DRI team intercepted the bus, searched passengers and recovered the bag from Afroz. Though the conductor was not examined, PW-25’s evidence stayed firm in cross-examination. The High Court held that non-examination of the conductor did not shake the proved seizure, as the law does not require every possible witness to be examined once material witnesses are reliable.
Regarding the later recovery from Alamgir at Bettiah on 9 June 2016, the Court accepted the testimony of the official witnesses who seized 300 pieces of ₹1000 FICN from him. Their versions were backed by the seizure memo and forensic confirmation. The Court treated this second seizure as strong proof that the conspiracy was ongoing and that Alamgir was an active carrier in the FICN chain.
The Court then turned to the core conspiracy evidence. Two co-accused, Sanjay Kumar (PW-1) and Ashikul Islam (PW-66), had become approvers under Section 306 CrPC. They gave detailed accounts of how high-quality fake notes were procured from across the Bangladesh–India border in Malda, West Bengal, and then moved into Bihar for circulation. They explained the roles of all four appellants in this network.
The judges accepted that an approver’s evidence must be treated with great caution. Citing Section 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Supreme Court precedents such as Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana and Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that while a conviction can legally rest on uncorroborated accomplice testimony, as a matter of prudence courts look for confirmation in material particulars.
In this case, the High Court found that PW-1 and PW-66 were corroborated by several independent factors: the proven recoveries from Afroz and Alamgir, call detail records showing contact between the appellants, and bank records of financial transactions linked to the FICN dealings. Because their narrative fitted these objective facts, the Court found their testimony trustworthy.
The Court also examined PW-27, a protected witness identified only as X-1. This witness described the role of Sunny @ Kabir Khan and Alamgir in arranging and moving fake currency consignments. Defence counsel argued that using a protected witness, whose identity could not be tested, was unsafe. The Court rejected a blanket rule against such evidence. It noted that PW-27’s account was natural, coherent, remained unshaken in cross-examination and matched the other evidence. Mere protection of identity, the Bench held, did not damage credibility when the testimony appeared reliable and was corroborated.
On the scientific side, forensic experts examined the seized notes and opined that they were high-quality counterfeit, printed with sophisticated techniques and closely resembling genuine currency. The Court held that the report could be marked without calling the author under Section 292 CrPC and that this technical evidence firmly established that the seized notes were not genuine.
Telecom nodal officers and bank officials proved call detail records (CDRs) and bank documents. The CDRs showed frequent contacts between the appellants at relevant times, and the bank records showed money movement connected with the fake currency transactions. Though the defence criticised the lack of Section 65B certificates for electronic records, the High Court accepted that, read together with oral evidence, these documents formed links in the circumstantial chain.
The appellants also attacked the Section 108 Customs Act statement of Afroz, recorded by PW-22, as inadmissible, arguing that DRI officers are “police officers” under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and that the statement was not voluntary. The Court referred to Supreme Court rulings including Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India and Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, and stressed that voluntariness is important.
However, the Bench made it clear that, in this case, it was not treating the Section 108 statement as the sole basis of conviction. It considered the statement only as one piece of the overall picture, supported by recoveries, independent witnesses and approvers. Therefore, even if the value of that statement was reduced, the rest of the evidence was strong enough and the prosecution case did not fail.
On the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, the Court noted that conspiracies are usually proved by circumstances, not direct evidence. Relying on Supreme Court decisions such as Kehar Singh and Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, it held that the combination of large FICN recoveries, coordinated roles of different accused, corroborated approver and protected witness testimony, and supporting forensic and documentary proof, created a complete chain pointing to a single conclusion — all four appellants were part of a tightly knit FICN trafficking plan.
The Bench then considered the use of UAPA. Section 15 defines “terrorist act” to include acts aimed at threatening the economic security of India. The Court held that smuggling and circulating large quantities of high-quality fake currency across borders, in an organised manner, directly threatens the national economy and fits within Sections 15 and 16. Participation in such a plan attracts Section 18 (conspiracy for terrorist acts) and Section 20 (membership of a terrorist organisation or group).
The appellants argued that, at most, they could be accused of possessing fake notes and that there was no proof of trafficking to attract Section 489B IPC, which covers selling, buying, receiving, trafficking or using counterfeit notes as genuine. The Court rejected this, stating that the recovery of very large quantities of FICN, supported by evidence that the notes were smuggled from Bangladesh and were to be moved through border areas like Raxaul, raised a clear presumption that the notes were meant for trafficking, not mere possession. The Court thus upheld the convictions under Sections 489B and 489C IPC.
Finally, on sentencing, the Court reflected on the purpose of punishment: protecting society, preventing criminal behaviour and keeping in view both justice and mercy. But it held that some crimes demand the highest punishment. Large-scale FICN circulation, the Bench observed, has a “perverse effect” on the country’s economy and carries the danger of creating a parallel fake-currency economy which can destroy development.
Keeping this in mind, the Court found no reason to reduce the life sentences awarded under UAPA and related offences. It affirmed both the conviction and the sentence and dismissed all four appeals.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment shows that the Patna High Court treats organised fake currency rackets as a serious threat, not just to individual victims but to the entire economy. By confirming life imprisonment under UAPA and IPC, the Court signalled that large-scale fake currency trafficking will be treated on par with terrorist-like acts.
The decision also explains that courts can rely on approvers, protected witnesses, forensic reports, call records and bank documents, as long as they fit together and are carefully checked. People facing similar charges can see how the Court examines the chain of evidence and when it is ready to accept that a conspiracy is proved.
For law enforcement and investigators, the case underlines the value of proper seizure memos, independent witnesses, scientific testing and financial trail analysis in building strong cases in FICN and other organised crime matters.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Were the seizures of fake currency from two appellants and the supporting evidence reliable enough to prove a criminal conspiracy?
Answer: Yes. The Court held that the recoveries, supported by independent and official witnesses, forensic reports, approver and protected witness testimony, CDRs and bank records, formed a complete and trustworthy chain proving conspiracy. -
Issue: Could the appellants be convicted under Sections 489B, 489C IPC and under Sections 16, 18 and 20 UAPA on the available material?
Answer: Yes. The Court found that the quantity and manner of circulation of FICN showed trafficking and an organised plan that threatened India’s economic security, fitting both the IPC counterfeit provisions and UAPA’s concept of terrorist acts. -
Issue: Did alleged weaknesses, such as reliance on a Section 108 Customs Act statement, use of approvers, a protected witness and electronic records, create reasonable doubt?
Answer: No. The Court held that even if the Section 108 statement’s value was reduced, the rest of the evidence was sufficient, the approvers were corroborated, the protected witness was credible, and the documentary records properly supported the prosecution case.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1
- Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417
- Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609
- Sukhdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, (1992) 3 SCC 700
- Snehlata Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 192
- Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India, (2008) 4 SCC 668
- Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (1975) 3 SCC 742
- Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 3 SCC 68
- Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609
- State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600
Case Details
Case Numbers:
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1382 of 2018
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1378 of 2018
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1380 of 2018
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1422 of 2018
Trial Case:
Special Case No. 01 of 2015 (arising out of R.C. No. 15/2015/NIA/DLI)
Case Title:
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1382 of 2018 – Alamgir Sheikh @ Raju v. The State through N.I.A.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1378 of 2018 – Sunny Kumar @ Kabir Khan @ Sujit Kumar @ Kabir v. The Union of India through N.I.A., New Delhi
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1380 of 2018 – Ashraful Alam @ Ishraful Alam @ Fatik v. The State through N.I.A.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1422 of 2018 – Afroz Ansari v. The State through N.I.A.
Citation:
2026(1) PLJR 288
Court:
High Court of Judicature at Patna
Date of Judgment (High Court):
19-11-2025
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Advocates:
In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1382 of 2018:
For the appellant: Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
For N.I.A.: Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate (ASG); Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl. P.P.; Mr. Shiaditya Dhari Sinha, AC to ASG; Mr. Paritosh Parimal, Advocate
For Union of India: Mr. Manoj Mr. Singh, Spl. P.P.
In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1378 of 2018:
For the appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the respondent: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General
In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1380 of 2018:
For the appellant: Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Spl. P.P., NIA
In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1422 of 2018:
For the appellant: Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh
Nature of Case:
Criminal appeals (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence in NIA Special Case involving fake Indian currency notes under IPC and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Link to Judgment:
Patna High Court Judgment in CR. APP (DB) No.1382 of 2018 and analogous cases
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
