Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned advocate also drew the attention of this Court to Habibur Rahaman -Vs. - State of West Bengal in CRA 277 of 2016 and emphasis was made on internal page 8 of the said judgment which is set out as follows:

"Lastly, it is argued ingredients of offence under section 489B IPC have not been proved. Prosecution evidence clearly shows that the appellant and the co-accused was apprehended in front of a tailor shop while carry counterfeit currency notes totaling to Rs 10 lakhs. When the appellant was found carrying a large volume of FICNs in a public place and he is unable to give any explanation for the said possession, one can safely held the appellant was knowingly trafficking in counterfeit currency notes. Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code makes selling, buying, receiving or trafficking in counterfeit currency notes culpable. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the charge framed against the appellant under section 489B of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows:- "that you on 4.11.2014 at township More on NH 34, under Baisnabnagar PS DistMalda attempted to use/traffic forged or counterfeit Indian currency notes of Rs. 9,76,000/- of denomination of Rs. 1,000/- each (976 pieces) and Rs. 24,000/- of denomination of Rs. 500/- each (48 pieces) and totalling Rs 10,00,000/- knowing the same to be counterfeit and as per seizure list dated 4.11.2014, a copy of which was served to you, knowing the same to be forged or counterfeit."

Both the learned advocates for the appellants relied upon the following judgments for advancing their contentions in respect of the acquittal as well as the in-applicability of Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code. Relevant paragraphs so relied upon in respect of each of the judgments are accordingly dealt with.

Attention of the Court was drawn to paragraph 9 of Jiban Sasmal -Vs. - State of West Bengal 1987 SCC OnLine Cal 114 "9. Although it is in evidence led on behalf of the prosecution that five currency notes were recovered from the possession of the present app ellant but mere possession of those counterfeit currency notes will not be sufficient to uphold the charge framed against the appellant under s. 489C and, as such, the conviction thereunder cannot be sustained i nasmuch as from a plain reading of the said Section, it is clear that m ere possession of any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank not es, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be so will not be s ufficient inasmuch as the Section itself provides that possession occup ied with intention to use the same as genuine is required to be satisfie d before a conviction can be upheld under s. 489C. In the charge fram ed against the appellant under the said section, it has been stated tha t under s. 489C, he had in his possession five currency notes of ten ru pee denomination, full particulars whereof had been given, together w ith the charge that he intended to use the same as genuine, whereas f rom an analysis of the evidence led for and on behalf of the prosecutio n, it is clear that it does not support such charge inasmuch as all the fi ve counterfeit currency notes were no doubt found in his possession b ut there is no evidence that he intended to use the same as genuine.

"14. Analysis of the aforesaid section shows whoever sells, buys or receives from any other person or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes with the knowledge or reasonable belief that the said notes are forged or counterfeit is said to have committed the offence. Hence, sale, purchase or receipt from any person, or otherwise trafficking in counterfeit currency notes as genuine is a sine qua non of such offence. There is no evidence that the appellants had sold, received or used any counterfeit notes. However, it has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that the appellant was "otherwise trafficking in"
8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mensrea o f offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C is "knowing or having reas on to believe the currency notes or banknotes are forged or counterfeit ". Without the aforementioned mensrea selling, buying or receiving fro m another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forge d or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes, is not enough to constitut e offence under Section 489-B IPC. So also possessing or even intendi ng to use any forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489-C in the absence of th e mensrea, noted above. No material is brought on record by the prose cution to show that the appellant had the requisite mensrea. The High Court, however, completely missed this aspect. The learned trial Judg e on the basis of the evidence of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 7 that they were able to make out that the currency note alleged to have been given to PW 4 was fake, "presumed" such a mensrea. On the date of the incide nt the appellant was said to be an eighteen-year-old student. On the f acts of this case the presumption drawn by the trial court is not warra nted under Section 4 of the Evidence Act. Further it is also not shown t hat any specific question with regard to the currency notes being fake or counterfeit was put to the appellant in his examination under Sectio n 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On these facts, we have no opti on 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 IPC and acq uit him of the said charges (see: M. Mammutti v. State of Karnatak a [(1979) 4 SCC 723 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 170 : AIR 1979 SC 1705] )."