Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/12 vs State Of Assam on 29 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010218482013
2025:GAU-AS:14501
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./408/2013
MAJEDA BEGUM
W/O MD. HAKIMUDDIN SHEIKH, R/O MORIANNAGAR, P.S. GOALPARA,
DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.A NEOG, MR.M HUSSAIN,MS.S K NARGIS
Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM,
Linked Case : Crl.A./409/2013
KHAJU MIA
S/O LATE SIRAJUDDIN SEIKH
R/O VILL. GASBARI
P.S. MANGALDAI
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM.
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM
Page No.# 2/12
------------
Advocate for : MS.S K NARGIS
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 29-10-2025 Heard Ms. SK Nargis, learned Counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. A. Begun, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the state.
2. The above-noted appeals having emanated from the judgment dated 30-11-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 60/2012, the appeals were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The appellants in the above-noted appeals have assailed the judgment dated 30- 11-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 60/2012, convicting the appellants under Section 489B IPC and sentencing them, accordingly.
4. Prosecution case, in brief, is that one Dulal Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Mayong Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 24-07-2011 at around 12 Hrs., one person had tendered him Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) currency note after shopping in his shop. He having suspected the note to be a forged one, called some nearby shopkeepers and showed them the currency notes. The other shop keepers on perusal of the currency notes also suspected the same to be forged. Accordingly, the Page No.# 3/12 police were informed and subsequently an FIR came to be lodged. The police on receipt of the FIR registered the same as Mayong P.S. Case No. 39/2011 under Section 489(B)/ 489(C) IPC Police on completion of the investigation, laid charge-sheet against the appellants, in the above noted appeals, under Section 489B/ 489C IPC.
The court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morigaon, on examination of the materials coming on record, having found the case to be one triable by the Sessions court, committed the case to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 60/2012. The trial court on appreciating the materials coming on record, proceeded to frame charge under section 489B IPC against the appellants. The charge being read over and explained to the appellants, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued in the matter.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 08 (eight) witnesses. Thereafter, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The Trial Court upon conclusion of the trial, appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide judgment dated 30-11-2013 to convict the above-noted appellants, under Section 489B IPC. On their such conviction, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 06 (six) months.
Being aggrieved the appellants have instituted the above noted, appeals.
Page No.# 4/12
5. Ms. S.K. Nargis, learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset has submitted that the ingredients requisite for holding the appellants, herein, to be guilty of committing an offence under Section 489B IPC is clearly absent in the present matter. By referring to the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the learned counsel has further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the mens rea of the appellants, requisite to be established under Section 489B IPC. It is submitted that no evidence was lead by the prosecution during the trial, that the appellants, herein, had utilized the currency notes knowing or having reason to believe that the same where forged or counterfeits. Accordingly she submits that the conviction of the appellants under Section 489B IPC by the learned Trail Court would not be sustainable and would require interference from this Court.
6. Ms. Nargis, learned counsel has further submitted that the seizure of 11 (eleven) currency notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination, from the possession of the appellants, was not established in view of the apparent inconsistencies existing in the depositions of the prosecution witness. She further submits that the place, wherein, such seizure was made is also doubtful. According she submits that a doubt having arisen with regard to the very seizure of the currency notes from the appellants, herein, the same must be answered in favour of the appellants, herein and they would be entitled to be acquitted of the charge framed against them under section 489B IPC.
7. In the above premises the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment dated 30-11-2013 passed by the learned Trial Court would mandate an interference from this Court.
Page No.# 5/12
8. Per contra, Ms. A Begum, learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that a close perusal of the evidences coming on record would make it apparent that the appellants, herein, had the knowledge that the currency notes used by them for shopping at the shop of the informant were forged and/ or to be counterfeits. She submits that the said aspect of the matter is clear from the deposition of PW 7 who had deposed that the appellants, herein, had earlier come to his shop and after buying materials worth Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) had offered Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) for payment, but on examining the note he had a suspicion of the same being forged and had refused to sell the commodity to the appellants, herein. She further submits that the seizure memos as prepared were duly proved by the seizure witnesses during the trial and it was established that in addition to the notes given to the informant, further currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellants.
9. Ms. Begum has further submitted that the currency notes as seized from the possession of the appellants were established during the trial to be counterfeits through the evidence adduced by the forensic expert as PW 5
10. In the above premises Ms. Begum submits that the ingredients of Section 489B IPC having been found to be established against the appellants herein, their conviction and sentencing under Section 489B IPC, by the learned Trial Court, would not mandate any interference by this Court.
11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
Page No.# 6/12
12. The appellants, herein, have been convicted under Section 489-B IPC, which reads as under;
489(B) Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency or bank- notes.- Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank- note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
13. A perusal of the provisions of Section 489B IPC would make it apparent that for constituting the offence contemplated therein it is required that the mens rea of the accused of knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes to be forged or counterfeits must be established by the prosecution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umashanker Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 642, dealing with the said issue had held as under;
"6. The conviction of the appellant by the trial court as confirmed by the High Court is u/s 489B and Section 489C of I.P.C., which read as under:
"489-B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.-
Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency- note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
489-C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank- notes.-
Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a Page No.# 7/12 term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
7. Sections 489-A to 489-E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-notes. The object of Legislature in enacting these provisions is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency-notes and bank-notes. The currency-notes are, inspite of growing accustomedness to the credit cards system, still the backbone of the commercial transactions by multitudes in our country. But these provisions are not meant to punish unwary possessors or users.
8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency-notes or bank-notes are forged or counterfeit". Without the afore- mentioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank- notes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489-B of I.P.C. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency-noted or bank-notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489-C in the absence of the mens rea, noted above. No material is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant had the requisite mens rea. The High Court, however, completely missed this aspect. The learned trial judge on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 that they were able to make out that currency note alleged to have been given to P.W. 4, was fake "presumed" such a mens rea. On the date of the incident the appellant was said to be 18 years old student. On the facts of this case the presumption drawn by the trial court is not warranted under Section 4 of the Evidence Act. Further it is also not shown that any specific question with regard to the currency-notes being fake or counterfeit was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. On these facts we have no option but to hold that the charges framed under Sections 489-B and 489-C are not proved. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Sections 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charges [see : M. Mammutti Vs. State of Karnataka1].
9. Accordingly, the order under challenge of the High Court dated November 2, 1999 in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 1992 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
14. In the light of the provisions of Section 489 B IPC as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umashanker (Supra), this Court would now examine the evidences coming on record during the trial to ascertain as to whether the appellants, or any one of them can be imputed of having knowledge that the currency Page No.# 8/12 notes carried by them were forged or counterfeits.
15. PW-1 Dulal Das, the informant, deposed that around a year back the appellants, herein, had come to his shop to buy a mobile phone. He further deposed that they selected a mobile priced at Rs. 1500/- and tendered two currency notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination. He further deposed that on perusal of the currency notes, a suspicion having arisen, he had shown it to others. He deposed that, thereafter, the Police from Mayong Police Station had come there and taken the appellants, herein, away. PW-1 further deposed that he was a seizure witness and Mat. Ext.-1 to 11 were the forged notes seized from the appellants, herein.
16. During his cross he deposed that there were at the relevant point of time around 10-15 customers in the shop. He further deposed that except two notes seized by the police, which was tendered to him as price of the mobile, he had not seen from whom the other notes were seized.
17. PW-2 in his examination in chief deposed that there was a hue and cry in the shop of the PW-1 with regard to payment of cost of a mobile phone by forged currency notes and on reaching the shop he came to learn that the appellants, herein, had paid the forged currency notes. He also deposed to be a seizure witness.
18. During his cross examination, PW-2 deposed that he did not see from whom the material exhibits were recovered and that the material exhibits were shown to him in the police station. He further deposed that the material exhibits cannot be recognized ordinarily as forged and that it seems to be genuine in its outer look. He also deposed Page No.# 9/12 that the appellants, herein, were his neighbors and were illiterate and cultivators and further that on the day of occurrence it was a market day.
19. PW-3 Ranjan Nath, also deposed in the lines of PW-2. During his cross examination he deposed that the general people could not recognize the genuine and forged notes.
20. PW-4 a seizure witness deposed during his cross examination that the Police had obtained his signature at the Police Station on a blank paper. He further deposed that police had obtained signatures of all persons who had gone to the police station with him. He also deposed that he cannot say from where the police had seized the notes.
21. PW-5 Dr. Tulika Das, Senior Scientific Officer, Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, deposed that she had carried out the examination of the bank currency notes and opined that from the scientific examination carried out, the bank notes were found to be fake.
22. PW-6 Khagen Nath is a seizure witness. During his cross examination he had deposed that he had put his signature on the seizure memo in the evening at around 6/7 PM.
23. PW-7, Pankaj Saikia, a grocery shop owner, deposed that the appellants, herein, at around 11 a.m. had come to his shop and had brought some articles worth Rs. 100/- and had offered payment by tendering a Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) currency note. He deposed that on receiving the note, he had some suspicion and hence returned the note to the appellants, herein, and did not sell the articles.
24. During his cross he deposed that the Seizure list was prepared in the Police Station Page No.# 10/12 in his presence and he had put his signature, there on at the Police Station. He also deposed that most of the persons of the area have bodo paddy cultivation, which is their means of livelihood and the paddy was sold.
25. PW 8 Dimbeswar Hazarika, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on search 7 numbers of one thousand rupee notes were recovered from Khaju Miya (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 409/2013) and 4 numbers of one thousand rupee notes from Musstt. Majeda Begum (Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 408/2013). He further deposed that seizure lists were prepared. He further deposed that on being interrogated Majeda Begum had told him that her husband Hakimuddin had delivered one thousand rupee note to her. He also deposed that Khaju Miya had also told him that Hakimuddin was his son-in-law and that Hakimuddin had visited his residence and had given him 10 one thousand rupee notes.
26. During cross he deposed that he had not mentioned the time of the seizure in the seizure list but the time was mentioned in the Case Diary. He further deposed that although the forged notes were seized from the appellants, herein, their signatures were not taken in the seizure lists.
27. A perusal of the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses it is apparent that the appellants in the above noted appeals had tendered 02 (two) Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand Rupee) denominations currency notes against purchase of a mobile phone. The said currency notes along with the other currency notes recovered from the possession of the appellants were detected to be counterfeit upon examination of the same by the Forensic Expert. The learned Trial Court for the purpose of imputing knowledge to the appellants of the currency notes utilized by the appellants to be forged or counterfeit, had Page No.# 11/12 relied upon the evidence of PW-7. As noticed, hereinabove, the PW-7, a grocery shop owner had deposed that the appellant upon making an purchase of articles worth Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) had given a currency note of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) denomination. The same on being suspected to be counterfeit, the PW-7 had refused to sell the goods to the appellants, herein. A perusal of the evidences adduced by the PW-7 would bring to the forefront that he had not deposed of having informed the appellants, herein, that the currency note of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) denomination as given by them was a fake. The deposition of the PW-7 only indicates that on a suspicion arising, he had refused to sell the goods to them. From the deposition of the PW-7 it cannot be presumed that the appellants, herein, had the knowledge or reason to believe that the currency notes utilized by them were counterfeits and/ or forged. Further, the evidence adduced by the PW-2 brings to the forefront that the currency notes utilized by the appellants, herein, on a plain eyesight could not be recognized to be forged. The requisite mens rea on the part of the appellants, herein, has not been established by the prosecution during the trial. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients requisite for establishing a charge under Section 489B IPC was not established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution against the appellants, herein, and the appellants are entitled to the benefits of doubt arising there- from. Accordingly, the conviction and sentencing of the appellants, herein, by the learned Trial Court under Section 489B IPC stand set aside. The appellants, in the above noted appeals are acquitted and are set at liberty. The bail bonds executed by the appellants, stand discharged.
Page No.# 12/12
28. The order under challenge dated 30-11-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 60/2012 accordingly stands set aside.
29. With the above observations and directions, the present appeals stand allowed.
30. Registry to send back the TCR forthwith.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant