The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the accused's knowledge or reason to believe that the currency notes were counterfeit, as mens rea is an essential element in cases involving counterfeit currency.

1. The appellant - original accused (hereafter referred to as "accused") was tried along with one Mohammad Yunus for offence punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC in brief) in Sessions Case No.83/2012 before Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad and, while the other accused came to be acquitted as there was no evidence against the said accused, the appellant was convicted for these Sections. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 489(B) of IPC. For offence under Section 489(C), he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Thus these appeals.

2. The case of prosecution in short is as under :

On 29.9.2011, at about 3.00 p.m., in Cannaught Market, Cidco, Aurangabad, the accused had gone to one shop, Shivam Mobile Shoppee. He purchased one Vodafone Recharge of Rs.100/- from P.W.2 Dinesh Mahale and offered him a currency note of Rs.1000/-. Dinesh suspected the currency note and on the plea that he will get change, went to adjacent shop of P.W.3 Raju Vetal and explained his suspicion to him. A phone call was made to Cidco Police Station, received by P.I. Dabbewad (P.W.6). The fact was informed on phone to P.I. Dabbewad. The shopkeeper P.W.2 Dinesh and his neighbouring shopkeeper P.W.3 Raju Vetal, with the help of persons who had gathered, detained the accused till the police came. Police reached the spot in about half an hour and panchas were called including P.W.1 Sanjay Govandar. Search of the bag which the accused was carrying, was taken and in the bag, further 32 notes of Rs.1000/- denomination were found. Accused had a Samsung Mobile phone with him which was also seized. In the bag, there were two Pay-in-slips having contents filled of two different Account Numbers and Rs.25,000/-. Election Identity Card of the accused as well as diary containing phone numbers, 6 steel plates/ dishes and Railway Ticket of Travel, dated 25.9.2011 from Bhagalpur to Manmad were also found. These articles were seized vide panchanama Exh.36. The police took the seized articles along with the accused to State Bank of India, Main Branch, Aurangabad and after verifying from the Branch Manager that the currency notes were fake, the police party reached back to the Police Station and P.W.5 P.S.I. Baburao Bodke, who was along with P.W.6 P.I. Dabbewad at the time of seizure, filed F.I.R. Exh.53. P.W.6 Maruti Dabbewad took up the investigation. Statements were recorded. The seized notes were sent to the General Manager, Currency Note Press, Nasik Road, Nasik on 13.10.2011. The investigation was taken over by the Crime Branch on 25.10.2011 and P.W.4 Harish Khatavkar received the expert opinion on forged notes from the Currency Note Press, Nasik (Exh.46) that the currency notes were counterfeit. Through Deputy Commissioner of Police S.S. Garge, P.W.4 P.S.I. Harish got sent a letter to Department of Currency Management, informing the numbers of the currency notes which had been seized so that Rs.1000/- denomination currency notes in circulation in the market could be kept under observation. After the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed and the accused was put up to trial. Accused No.2 was stated to be his accomplice and two accused Nos.3 and 4 were shown as absconding, in whose accounts it was claimed accused No.1 had earlier deposited amounts.

3. Prosecution brought on record evidence of six witnesses and the documentary evidence was also proved. The defence of the accused, as can be seen from the cross-examination and his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. in brief) is that of denial.

4. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused and sentence as menti