Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The learned prosecutors supported the findings and verdict handed down by the court below and argued that necessary ingredients of section 489B have been established over and above the ingredients of section 489C and hence, the appeals be rejected.

6. On the basis of secret source information received on 30.08.2008, P.W. 1, the Sub-inspector made requisite diary entry to the effect that one Mokaram of Bongaon area, accompanied by two or three others, would come to Ruby Hospital at bus-stand in front of ECTP under Kasba P.S. for delivering Forged Indian Currency Notes ('FICN' in short) to his agents. P.W. 1, accompanied by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, raided and apprehended the target persons with FICN. The seizures were witnessed by two independent persons in the locality, including P.W. 4. On the basis of the testimony of the witnesses, the raid, search and seizure were proved to the satisfaction of the court below. It was also supported by the evidence of the local witnesses regarding seizure. The articles which were seized and produced were proved. The court below rightly acted upon such evidence. P.W. 1 gave details about getting the source of information, the raid, recovery of FICN and attendant factors. He stated that he received information from a secret source. Corroborating materials, in the form of testimony of the policemen, are trustworthy. Having gone through the oral evidence, we do not see any material contradiction among any of the witnesses in relation to the information, raid and recovery of FICN. That search and seizure was followed by another raid on 03.09.2008. FICN were seized. The numbers and other details of the FICN are delineated in the judgment of the court below.

8. The court below held that this is not a case where the accused persons could plead that they did not have the mens rea to commit the offences. The non-examination of any defence witness and the fact that no specific statement was made by any of the accused persons, when questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., were factors which weighed with the court below to hold that the accused persons, including the appellants, possessed the FICN being aware of the fact that they were not genuine. Thus mens rea was clearly established. This is not one of those cases where the court would assume the absence of mens rea on the premise that the possession of FICN by the accused persons was innocent, accidental or in any other such manner which would lead the court to hold that the actus reus of possession of FICN was not coupled with mens rea. The component of mens rea for offence falling under Section 489B and/or 489C is the knowledge or having reason to believe that the currency note or bank note is forged or counterfeit, coupled with the intention to use the same as genuine or the knowledge that it may be used as genuine.

any other person, may require the participation of two persons to complete any such transaction. However, any activity which would fall within the phrase "otherwise traffics in" does not indispensably require active participation of more than one person if noticeably sizable quantity of FICN is found to be in the possession of that person and such concealed possession cannot be treated as dormant possession. It is active transportation which amounts to trafficking. Any other mode of interpreting the phrase "or otherwise traffics" would dilute the rigour of law. A strict and literal interpretation of the penal provision contained in Section 489B of the IPC does not lead us to any other conclusion. Thus, the phrase "or otherwise traffics" in Section 489B of the IPC would take within its sweep, the action of dealing or trading in forged counterfeit currency note or bank note even otherwise than by selling, buying (purchase) or receiving. Therefore, the word "traffics" and the phrase "or otherwise traffics in" in Section 489B of the IPC are not to be read ejusdem generis with the words "sells", "buys" or "receives"; but ought to be read to understand that activities other than selling, buying or receiving would also fall into the basket of the incriminating factors which constitute the ingredients of the acts and omissions which is an offence as per that Section.

13. 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.