Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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."

Plain reading of the aforesaid charge shows the prosecution had put the appellant on notice that he was being accused of "attempt to sell/trafficking" in counterfeit notes. As discussed above, evidence on record unequivocally shows the appellant and co-accused were apprehended while carrying a large volume of counterfeit notes in a public place. Thus, transportation of counterfeit notes by the appellant is clearly established."

"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"

Appellants also relied upon M. Mammutti -Vs. - State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 723, to strengthen their arguments for culpability and complicity in respect of counterfeit currency. Reference was made to the following paragraph:

"S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.-- The appellant has been convicted in this appeal under Sections 489-B and 489-C and has been sentenced to RI for one year and to RI for six months respectively and fine of Rs

500. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that it is true that the appellant was found in possession of a counterfeit two rupee note and the accused handed over the note to a friend to purchase a ticket for a circus show. The booking clerk on seeing the note got suspicious. He immediately informed the Sub-Inspector of Police and on search of the Appellant 99 two rupee notes were recovered. The appellant in his statement under Section 342 stated that two days ago he sold three quintals of tamarind fruits to a person whom he did not know and that person gave him a sum of Rs 390. These currency notes have been given to him by the purchaser. He also said that he did not know that these currency notes were counterfeit and he came to know of it for the first time when he was interrogated by the police. There is no evidence of any witness to show that the counterfeit notes were of such a nature or description that a mere look at them would convince any person of average intelligence that it was a counterfeit note. Nor was any such question put to the accused under Section 342 CrPC. The High Court has affirmed the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that in his statement under Section 342 made before the committing Court the accused has made a statement different from that made in the Sessions Court and therefore the appellant had reason to believe that notes in his possession were counterfeit notes. Here the High Court is not correct because even in the statement before the committing Court in Ex. P-13 which appears at p. 154 of the paper-book, the appellant has stuck to the same statement which he made before the Sessions Court that he had sold three quintals of tamarind fruits and from the purchaser he received a sum of Rs 390 in two rupee notes. We are not able to find any inconsistency between the answer given by the accused in his statement under Section 342 before the Sessions Judge and that before the Committing Court specially on the point that the appellant had the knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit. Mr Nettar submitted that once the appellant is found in possession of counterfeit notes, he must be presumed to know that the notes are counterfeit. If the notes were of such a nature that mere look at them would convince anybody that it was counterfeit such a presumption could reasonably be drawn. But the difficulty is that the prosecution has not put any specific question to the appellant in order to find out whether the accused knew that the notes were of such a nature. No such evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the nature of the notes also. In these circumstances, it is impossible for us to sustain the conviction of the appellant. For these reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed, conviction and sentences passed on the appellant are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him."