IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10067 of 2009 MD.SAYEED @ HAFIZ @ MD.SAIYAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 27.4.2009 Heard. The renewal prayer has been made by the petitioner, whose earlier prayer was dismissed in Cr.Misc.Petition No.19983 of 2008. The petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2007 on the allegation that while was sitting in a hotel in Kudra, he was found with a bag of blue colour containing fake currency notes of the value of Rs.45,400/-each in the denomination of Rs.100/-. Those notes were fake, was certified by the State Bank of India. The learned senior counsel Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that from the very facts it could not be said that the bag in question was directly recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that the offence may be either under Section 489A or 489C of the Penal Code. The third contention was that even assuming that it could be an offence under Section 489B of the IPC, the legislature provides three alternative sentences and considering that aspect of the matter in context of the confinement of the petitioner since 20.11.2007, the court may consider to direct the release of the petitioner. On the earlier occasion when the prayer for bail of the petitioner was heard and dismissed by me, I have no reason to express any opinion on the constitution of the offence but because there has been some direct and clear argument on that aspect of the matter, it may - 2 - not be improper if I make some observations thereon and before doing that I may point out that the facts as alleged do not indicate that the bag could have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. If that could be so, from the plain reading of the FIR, it could be safely said that the petitioner could be said to be moving with fake currency notes from one place to the other and the word “traffics” as appears in Section 489B of the IPC would very well be attracted. The legislature has, indeed, provided alternative sentences of different periods but if one is found in the manner as the petitioner was in custody, then this could be very well to this court to express any opinion because the jurisdiction on penalizing lies with the trial court. The petition is dismissed as of no merits. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )