IMPORTANT POINT
Possession of counterfeit currency notes, along with intent to traffic, constitutes a violation of IPC Sections 489B and 489C, affirming the necessity of mens rea in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

The appellant has called in question the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence dated 3rd January 2013 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in SC No.12/2012 finding him guilty of committing the offences under Section 489B and C of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC') by preferring this appeal.

2. Parties to this appeal are referred with reference to their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

The facts leading upto this appeal in brief are as under:

That the accused on 2.3.2010 at 12.30 p.m. near the Institute of Engineering Building, Mysore by using the counterfeit currency notes with an intention to trafficking the same and when the raid was conducted by the IO, he was found in possession of 30 counterfeit currency notes bearing single currency 2BE901745 of denominations of Rs.500/- each knowing fully well that the same were counterfeit notes with an intention to use the same as genuine notes. Thus, he has committed the offence under Sections 489-B and C of IPC.

3. Accordingly, at the spot itself the PSI prepared the panchanama as per Ex.P1 and based upon that, by apprehending the accused, seized the counterfeit notes. The then PSI B.Puttannaiah lodged a complaint as per Ex.P2 before the Police Inspector, Lakshmipuram Police Station, Mysore City. The same was registered in Crime No.42/2010 for the aforesaid offences and the criminal law was set in motion.

4. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the Court. After completion of the investigation, the Police Inspector of Lakshmipuram P.S filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 489-B and C of IPC.

5. Before the trial Court to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined seven witnesses from PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to 5 with respective signatures and also MO nos. 1 to 3. During the course of cross-examination, a portion of statement of PW.6 P.N.Somashekar was marked at Ex.D1.

6. The learned trial Court on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence found the accused guilty of committing the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as under:

“The Accused shall be convicted for the offence under section 489C, I am of the opinion that, ends of justice would be met by imposing to punish the accused of rigorous imprisonment for a term of FIVE YEARS and he shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- [RUPEES THREE THOUSAND ONLY] and in default to undergo imprisonment for THREE MONTHS.

Issue conviction warrant.

Benefit of set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is given to the Accused.

Material objects 1-cover and 3-cloth cover since worthless are destroyed after appeal period is over. Material objects 2-30 notes of rupees five hundred denominations each shall be sent to nearest treasury to dispose of the same in accordance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice 1968”.

7. This is how the accused is before this Court challenging the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant accused with all force submits that, though it is alleged that the accused with an intention to traffic the counterfeit currency notes was caught hold by the IO and from him, 30 notes were seized. According to his submission, evidence placed on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. When the so called raid was conducted accused was in possession of his purse and Rs.200/- which were not seized by the IO. The very ingredients of the offence so made out against the accused are not duly proved in accordance with law. The panchas have not supported the contents of the panchanama. There is a distance of 2 furlong from the scene of offence to the Police Station and the very raid appears to be a created and concocted one. Relying upon the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, it is submitted that there is a doubt in the case of the prosecution and that benefit of doubt