Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. There is no material on the record to show that the xerox machine, the voltage stabiliser, the blank papers and the paper containing some impression of the Indian currency note belonged to the convict. Mere fact that they were seized from room No. 14 is not enough. Therefore, the question of the convict becoming liable for possession of the aforesaid articles does not arise.

10. Even assuming for the sake of argument that these articles were seized from the possession of the appellant that would not without anything more justify a finding that the appellant is guilty either under section 498A or under section 489D/489E of IPC. There is no evidence on the record to suggest that the appellant indulged in the act of counterfeiting any currency note or knowingly performed any part of the process of counterfeiting any currency note. Therefore the charge under section 489A was not at all proved.

In Roney Dubey -versus- State of West Bengal reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Cal 549, the appellate Court was considering a case of FICN under Sections 489A, 489C and 489D of the Indian Penal Code. The Court referred to the word counterfeit as has been used in Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP

-versus- Hafeez Mohammad, AIR 1960 SC 1969 and concluded that since mens rea of the appellant could not be established by the prosecution on the facts of the case, and there were no evidence except three notes of Rs.50/- denomination-being seized from the possession of the appellant, it was held that it would be unjustified to convict the appellant.

In Sou. Bharati -versus- State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1373, forty-eight fake currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination were recovered from the house after an initial search was made on the person of the accused, and there were recoveries of one-sided printed notes. The police authorities took into account the number of fake currencies which were recovered and submitted a charge-sheet. On conclusion of prosecution, the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 489A/489B/489C/489D of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate Court, on an assessment of the materials, was of the opinion that so far as recovery of the counterfeit currency notes from the house is concerned, the same are said to have been printed only on one side and obviously, without any expert opinion, it could be said that the same are counterfeit currency. The evidence on record established the charge of conspiracy under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Court, therefore, proceeded to arrive at a conclusion that the charges against the appellants have been proved and they have been rightly held guilty of the same by the trial Court. In this case, there was only modification of sentence by the learned trial Court, and the order of conviction was upheld.