Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
Rahamat Ali – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. 582 of 2007
Decided On : 10-05-2024
Counterfeiting - Criminal Conviction - IPC Sections 489B, 489C - The court emphasized the necessity of proving mens rea for conviction under these sections, highlighting that mere possession of a counterfeit note without intent or knowledge does not constitute an offense.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for using a counterfeit currency note at a petrol station. The prosecution claimed the note was counterfeit, but the appellant argued that he was falsely implicated and lacked knowledge of the note's status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary mens rea required for conviction under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC, as there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant's knowledge or intent regarding the counterfeit note.
Issues: Whether the appellant had the requisite mens rea to be convicted under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC for using a counterfeit currency note.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere possession of a counterfeit note does not suffice for conviction; the prosecution must prove that the accused knew or had reason to believe the note was counterfeit and intended to use it as genuine.
Result: The conviction under Sections 489B and 489C IPC is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) :
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.07.2007 and 27.07.2007 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – 1, Krishnagar, Nadia, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 11 (January) 2007, arising out of Sessions Case No. 43(9)2006 convicting the appellant under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and thus directing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months, for commission of offence punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for commission of offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the sentences being directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case precisely stated that the informant Golam @Gulam Kuddus the cashier employed in Debnath Auto Fuel Service situated adjacent to Katwa More. On 30.08.2005 at 2.00 a.m., one Tata 407 Car arrived at the petrol pump for procuring diesel and paid a sum of Rs.1336.44/-in denomination of one Five Hundred Rupee Note and several Ten and Twenty Rupees Notes. At the time of checking, the said Five Hundred Rupee Note was found to be counterfeit and the number of the note was 6AA162744. When the driver of the Tata 407 was asked for about this, he was unable to say anything. The informant confined this person and informed the owner of the petrol pump and after receiving the instructions from the owner, the informant reached the R.O.P. and lodged a complaint against the driver, Rahamat Ali who hereby, is the appellant.
3. Subsequently, Kaliganj Police Station Case No. 174 of 2005 dated 30.08.2005 under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation.
4. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Rahamat Ali, the appellant herein and the Learned Trial Judge framed charges against Rahamat Ali who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and commenced the process of trial.
5. During the trial, prosecution examined nine (9) witnesses and exhibited certain documents.
6. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that –
ii. The Learned Judge has failed to appreciate the ‘omissions amounting to contradictions’ in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
iii. The Learned Judge in convicting the appellant, has totally ignored the contradictions between the statements made by the witnesses in the court and during their examination by the police.
iv. The charge as was framed against the appellant, suffered from inherent lacunae, which caused severe prejudice to the appellant.
v. In conducting of the prosecution of the instant case, there has been a non examination of material witnesses.
vi. The prosecution has totally failed to adduce any evidence in regard to the presence of the necessary mens rea on the part of the appellant in committing the acts, which allegedly constituted offences charged.
vii. The Learned Judge passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, on vague surmises and conjectures, in totally disbelief the defence plea of ‘innocence’, without assigning any cogent reason for such disbelief.
7. The Learned Advocate for the State submitted that a single piece of fake currency note will not comprise the alleged offence and left it to the discretion of the Court.
8. A circumspection of the evidence prosecution witnesses revealed as follows:
Mens rea is essential for conviction under IPC Sections 489B and 489C; mere possession of a counterfeit note without intent or knowledge does not constitute an offense.
Prosecution must prove both knowledge and intent regarding the possession of forged currency; mere possession is insufficient for conviction under guiding statutes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to reframe the charges and give the appellants an opportunity to respond to the charges of trafficking or transportation of counte....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove possession of forged currency notes, knowledge of their counterfeit nature, and intention to use them as genuine in ord....
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.
Possession of counterfeit currency alone does not warrant conviction under IPC Section 489A; trafficking established through possession leads to conviction under Sections 489B and 489C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
