Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)
State Of Karnataka vs Afthab Ahammed Khan on 1 June, 2023 cites

Umashanker vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 October, 2001

43. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Sections 489B and 489C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency-notes or bank-notes are forged or counterfeit". Without the afore-mentioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489B of I.P.C. So also possessing or even intending to use Crl.A.No.100132/2019 41 any forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank- notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489C 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 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umashanker vs State Of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR 2001 SC 3074 held that no presumption can be drawn that notes found in possession of the accused were counterfeit notes. Mere possession of currency notes with the knowledge that they are counterfeit or fake currency notes is not sufficient to convict the accused under Section 489C of IPC. Prosecution is required to prove that accused were possessing the counterfeit or fake currency notes with an intention to use the same as genuine or it may be genuine. No material is produced on record by Crl.A.No.100132/2019 42 the prosecution to show that accused had requisite mens rea.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 79 - Full Document
1   2 Next