Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.

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:

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.