Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 489c in Anikul @ Anikul Islam & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal on 29 August, 2022Matching Fragments
Md. Muktarul Islam @ Suman -Vs. - State of West Bengal;
Md. Tousif -Vs.- State of West Bengal in CRA 163/2019;
Chhotelal Thakur -Vs. - Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 2149.
In Re: CRA 702 of 2018 This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order of conviction dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1 st Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 03(01)2016 arising out of Sessions Case no. 286/2015 wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code. The genesis of the case relates to Raghunathganj Police Station case no.744/15 dated 06.08.2015 under Section 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was registered on the basis of a complaint by Sourav Mojumdar, SI of police of Raghunathganj police station where he alleged that from the appellant 49 number of fake Indian currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were seized at Jangipur Bridge near Jangipur side staircase. The police team had to chase and intercept the appellant and the fake currency were recovered from his left side trouser pocket. The learned trial Court was pleased to convict the appellant/accused at the end of the trial and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.20,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned advocate drew the attention of this Court to Jubeda Chitrakar -
Vs. - State of West Bengal reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 8924 and relied upon paragraph 15 which is set out as follows:
"15. Adverting to the material evidence on record and the findings of the court below, it can be seen that the raid, interception and recovery were on the basis of secret information, the reception of which, and the modality of the raid and recovery have been noticed by us. 500 pieces of 100 rupees denomination FICN, 7 pieces of 1000 rupees denomination FICN and 9 pieces of 500 rupees denomination FICN wrapped in a newspaper and kept in a polly bag were recovered from Mokaram Mondal (one of the accused). Sunil Pramanick (one of the appellants) was also searched and 27 pieces of 500 rupees denomination FICN were recovered. Jubeda Chitrakar (one of the appellants) whose house was also raided led to recovery of 20 pieces of 500 rupees denomination FICN and 5 pieces of 1000 rupees denomination FICN. Thereupon, Jubeda was arrested. Again search and seizure was conducted leading to recovery of FICN from different other accused persons who are not amongst the appellants. They were also convicted. The appellants did not offer any explanation when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the possession of FICN. Nor was any evidence adduced in defense to explain the possession of FICN. Section 106 of the Evidence Act enjoins that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving the fact is upon him. In terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act the burden of proof of facts within the knowledge of the appellants regarding the nature of possession of FICN was not discharged. Hence, the possession of such large quantity of FICN in concealed manner is not dormant possession but active transportation amounting to trafficking. It amounts to commission of offences punishable under Section 489B of the IPC. The possession of FICN of such quantity is trafficking, and, therefore, falling under the incriminating activity which made the accused/appellants offenders punishable under Section 489B as well, apart from the liability for committing offences punishable under Section 489C. For the aforesaid reasons the conviction of the appellants under Sections 489B as well as 489C stands. We approve the findings of the court below on the issue that the accused persons are liable to be convicted under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC. Accordingly, we affirm the finding of guilt and the conviction of the appellants by the court below."
But these provisions are not meant to punish unwary possessors or users.
8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mensrea of offences under Sections 489B and 489C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency-notes or bank-notes are forged or counterfeit". Without the afore-mentioned mensrea 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 489B of I.P.C. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489C in the absence of the mensrea, noted above. No material is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant had the requisite mensrea. 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 mensrea. 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-noted being fake on 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 489B and 489C are not proved. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Sections 489B and 489C of I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charges [see: M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka]."
The manner of application of the provisions of Section 489B and Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code was referred in Md. Tousif -Vs.- State of West Bengal in CRA 163/2019 and attention was drawn to the following passage:
"In other words, if the prosecution is able to prove search, seizure, raid and recovery of FICN by adducing credible evidence in support of the prosecution case, the judicial precedents to the fact that illegal possession of huge quantity of FICN does not only attract Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code but the offence under Section 489B is also held to be proved.....