Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In Sarvesh Pathak @ Kallu & Anr. -versus- State of West Bengal reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 18497, the subject matter of challenge in the revisional application was in respect of an order refusing discharge relating to offences punishable under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code. According to the facts of the said case, three accused persons from whom fake Indian currency notes of Rs. 4.80 lakhs were recovered were arrested, and on subsequent disclosure Rs. 8 lakhs of fake currencies were further recovered from other persons, who were arrested. Consequently, charge-sheet was submitted on completion of investigation under Sections 489B/489C/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The revisionist prayed for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the offence punishable under Section 489B/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon'ble Court while dealing with the documents relied upon by the prosecution observed that the seizure of fake currency was from the possession of the accused persons and as such the offence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code was made out. However, the Court proceeded to observe that there must be some material to show that the fake notes were actually used or trafficked, meaning thereby there was a transaction involving those forged notes. The Court also took into consideration that a charge of criminal conspiracy could not be inferred from the materials collected by the investigating agency and further no materials was available as legally admissible evidence to support a case under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the Court proceeded to quash the charges under Section 489B/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

In Chhotelal Thakur -versus- Union of India reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 2149, the prosecution case was in respect of recovery of Rs. 14,46,500/- which included seven hundred and ninety-seven pieces of FICN of Rs. 1,000/- denomination and one piece of FICN of Rs. 500/- denomination. In this case, the accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code as the only evidence which was available with the prosecution, and relied upon in the trial, was a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The prosecution relied upon the judgments of Noor Aga -versus- State of Punjab reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417, and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan -versus- Inspector Customs reported in (2011) 12 SCC 298. Having considered that an evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act is a very weak piece of evidence without any corroborative material supporting the same, the Court proceeded to acquit the accused under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code though the conviction under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code was maintained. In Hoda Sk. -versus- State of West Bengal reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 1478, the facts of the case related to recovery of one hundred FICN of Rs. 1,000/- denomination in 4 bundles, aggregating to an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code. In the said case, the appellate Court observed that at the time of framing of charges, the appellant was not called upon to answer the charge of "otherwise traffics in" - in respect of the FICN, which was being transported through public thoroughfare for commercial use. Thus, there was no scope for the trial Court to convict the appellant under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code as the substance of the charges were missing throughout the trial and the same obviously would prejudice the accused thereby causing failure of justice. In Uma Shankar -versus- State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 642, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with an appeal in respect of an order of conviction under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, not only took into account the absence of mens rea in respect of selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes, but also took into account the age of the appellant and the fact that at the stage of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. , the trial Court did not ask any specific question with regard to the currency notes being fake or counterfeit, and on such score acquitted the appellant under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. In M. Mammutti -versus- State of Karnataka reported in (1979) 4 SCC 723, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding an appeal in respect of conviction under Section 489B and 489C, acquitted the appellant. The main grounds on which the Hon'ble Court considered the issue of acquittal was that there was no evidence of any witness to show that the counterfeit notes were of such nature or description that a mere glance at them would convince any person of average intelligence that the same was a counterfeit note. In any event, the accused was also not examined on such incriminating circumstance relating to counterfeit currency under Section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Section 313 of CrPC, 1973).

In Abdul Rahiman -versus- State of Kerala reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 23291, one hundred counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were seized from the accused persons, who were charged under Section 489B and 489C, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of trial, the accused were convicted under Sections 489B and 489C, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the said order of conviction, appeal was preferred, wherein the appellants relied upon a series of judgments, including Umashanker (supra), and the appellate Court was pleased to hold that in order to attract the provisions of Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused used or sold or intended to sell or use the same as genuine notes and mere possession of the notes alone is not sufficient for attracting the offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the Court, while appreciating the answers under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., took into account that the accused persons were under a bona fide belief that the notes which were in their possession were genuine currency notes and were not FICN. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, and also modified the sentence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code.

In Mukhtarul Islam -versus- State of West Bengal reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 6838, the Division Bench while considering an appeal under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code against an order of conviction relating to sixteen notes of Rs. 500/- denomination took into account the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Mammutti (supra) and Umashanker (supra). The Division Bench disbelieved the factum that the appellant would continue to remain in the bank till the police arrived as there was no evidence to suggest or indicate that the appellant was detained forcibly. Further, in the factual circumstances of the case, the appellate court also did not rule out the possibility of the notes having been tampered with as the said FICN allegedly were kept in the police malkhana for more than 20 days, and no document was produced before the Court to show the retention of the said notes for such a long period in the police malkhana. Additionally, no questions were asked under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to the accused regarding the FICN. Consequently, the appellate court acquitted the accused persons. In Abu Sajeed @ Sayed & Anr. -versus- State of West Bengal reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 19255, the appellate court was considering an appeal from an order of conviction and sentence under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the facts related to seizure of one hundred pieces of FICN of Rs. 500/- denomination. The appellate court, while acquitting the appellant under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code and affirming the conviction under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, held that the prosecution evidence lacked materials relating to buying, selling or using as genuine FICN which were seized from the possession of the appellants.