Point of Law: Fake Indian Currency Notes - Statement of appellant - Admissibility of - It is a settled position in law that statements given in an examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be the basis for conviction or acquittal of an accused person.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram for the State/respondents.

2. This appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2019, passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge-III, Aizawl in S.C. No. 157/2017, arising out of Criminal Trial No. 1279/2017, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 489 ‘C’ of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On his conviction, he was sentenced to undergo 2 years Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, a further Simple Imprisonment for 1 month vide Order dated 16.08.2019. In respect of the co-accused Smt. Lalbiakthangi Varte, who was also charged with the same section of law, she was acquitted of the charge vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 09.08.2019.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on receiving certain information, the team of CID (SB) on 31.03.2017 at 4:30 p.m. apprehended the appellant at the roadside of Zonuam, Aizawl (beneath the graveyard) as he was found carrying suspected Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) inside a black rack sack. A total 305 numbers of Rs. 2000/- denomination suspected to be FICN amounting to Rs. 6,10,000/- were found inside the bag and seized in the presence of two civilian witnesses. As per the statement of the appellant, the FICN was given to him by Smt. Lalbiakthangi Varte @ Seni of Chanmari, Aizawl for reselling in order to earn handsome profit. Accordingly, Vaivakawn P.S. Case No. 40/2017 dated 31.03.2017 under Section 489 ‘C’ IPC was registered and investigation conducted. During the course of investigation, Smt. Lalbiakthangi Varte was also arrested and the statements of those arrested and that of the witnesses were recorded by the case Investigating Officer (case IO). Upon completion of the investigation, the case I.O. submitted Charge Sheet No. 86/2017 dated 24.07.2017 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl. Consequently, charge was framed by the Additional Session Judge under Section 489 ‘C’ IPC against the appellant on 12.04.2018 and to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. As such, trial commenced and in the process, the prosecution examined as many as 5 (five) prosecution witnesses, while the appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. Upon completion of the prosecution’s evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter, upon hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and Order, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to imprisonment as already stated hereinabove.

4. Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel submits that the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses suffers from inconsistencies and contradictions. He submits that although PW-1 (informant) in his cross examination stated that Mr. Mawia, who was the owner of the Maruti Car bearing Registration No. MZ-01B-7379 in which the bag containing FICN was being carried was involved in the alleged crime but the evidence of the case I.O. who was examined as PW-5 did not support the same. It therefore only appears that the prosecution have manufactured the case so as to prosecute the appellant illegally and detain him in prison.

5. The learned counsel submits that the basic ingredient to establish a case under Section 489 ‘C’ IPC against an accused person is that the prosecution must prove that the accused has the knowledge that the currency is counterfeit and that he has intention to use it as genuine. In other words, he submits that besides recovery of the FICN from the accused person, the prosecution has to establish that there is mens rea to utilize the FICN for gain or for other ulterior motive. The prosecution in the present case has failed to establish the same and as such, the impugned Judgment and Order convicting and sentencing the appellant cannot be sustained. In this connection, the learned counsel re