Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"43. Section 489-C deals with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeited currency notes or banknotes punishable. Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeited notes are necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Sections 489-C and 489-D. As was observed by this Court in State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese (1986) 4 SCC 746 the expression "currency notes" is large and wide enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of any country. Section 489-C is not restricted to Indian currency note alone but it includes the dollar also and it applies to American dollar bills.

14. In Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR 2001 SC 3074 it has been observed as follows:

"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 banknotes are forged or counterfeit". Without the aforementioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489-B IPC. So also possessing or even intending 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 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 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 mens rea. On the date of the incident the appellant was said to be an eighteen-year-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 the 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 IPC and acquit him of the said charges (see: M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 723)."

19. Now coming to the remaining witnesses, first of all evidence of PW.1, the informant is taken up who during course of his examination-in-chief had stated that after receiving confidential information regarding transportation of counterfeit Indian currency to Gopalganj via Muzaffarpur, they proceeded through government jeep after constituting a raiding party. After their arrival at Bairiya Bus Stand, Muzaffarpur he was informed regarding change of route by the miscreants who were to board in a bus at Begusarai and accordingly, they rushed. After arrival at Begusarai, they were again informed by the informer regarding boarding of miscreants at different place than bus stand whereupon they gone to Ramapati petrol pump where, they found two persons standing since before. When prosecution party proceeded towards them, they both began to flee were chased, apprehended and from their physical search, counterfeit Indian Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.622 of 2015 dt.30-06-2017 13 currency in huge quantity as per seizure list were recovered for that, search cum seizure list was prepared. The aforesaid exercise was done in presence of PW.9, PW.10, seizure list witnesses. This witness on recall exhibited the material exhibit which was produced in court in sealed cover by PW.11. During his examination-in-chief on recall it is apparent that he had torned the sealed envelope in presence of P.O. which was sealed by the FSL laboratory where currency notes were sent for chemical examination and the details thereof, is incorporated whereupon, have been made material exhibits. During cross- examination, it is evident that nothing substantial has been explicit from his end in order to discredit his testimony save and except that they have not informed the Begusarai local police regarding their arrival as well as after arrest of the accused who were apprehended by the side of the road near Ramapati petrol pump. He had also stated that he had not put any specific mark over the bundle of counterfeits currency notes. He had also stated that all the seized articles were recovered from both the accused. He had prepared only one seizure list bifurcating the same. He had further stated that he had not put his signature over any of the counterfeit currency note. He had further stated that from perusal of the notes, it is apparent that it happens to be counterfeit. Furthermore, he had shown by demonstration in open court with regard to note being counterfeit as is evident from para-49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54.

23. PW.8 is an expert who had examined the counterfeit currency notes found the same to be counterfeit Indian currency note whereupon, issued his report and had exhibited the same. During cross-examination, it is evident that she has not been examined over propriety of her report rather, to be effect that at the time of her examination, counterfeit Indian currency notes were not present.

24. From close scrutiny of the evidences having adduced on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.622 of 2015 dt.30-06-2017 16 behalf of prosecution it is apparent that apprehension of both the appellants in front of Ramapati petrol pump is found duly substantiated and in likewise manner recovery of huge number of counterfeit Indian currency notes from their physical possession having concealed in a manner, would not be located a glance. Non putting of specific mark over the seized counterfeit currency notes could be considered as prejudicial to the interest of co-accused and the answer, in the present facts and circumstances of the case happens to be in negative as, the search cum seizure list clearly discloses the serial no. of the counterfeit currency notes which were produced in court by way of material exhibit on recall by PW.1 and found tallied. Had there been some sort of manipulations, then in that event, appellants were in a position to challenge his evidence on that very score which they never did. So from the consistent evidence of the witnesses, it is apparent that recovery of counterfeit Indian currency notes in such huge quantity from the respective possession of both the appellants, not only satisfy, its possession, counterfeited Indian currency and concealment of such huge quantity of counterfeit currency notes by the respective appellants is indicative of the fact that appellants were knowing since before regarding being counterfeit Indian currency notes and further, the manner whereunder such huge quantity of counterfeit Indian currency notes were recovered happens to be indicative of the fact that it was to be used in order to spoil the Indian economy.