Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNCHAL PRADESH, AIZAWL BENCH
Marli Vankung, J.
Smt. K. Lalbiaktluangi W/o Lalremruata – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram represented by Home Department, Govt. of Mizoram through its Secretary, Home Department and ors. – Respondents
Crl.A. No. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 23-06-2022
Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 – Section 313 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 489B, 489C r/w 34 - Possession mensrea - Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes - Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank notes – Whether notes were fake or not - Whether the appellant knew that said Currency notes were actually fake currency notes in view of Section 489-C IPC which is reproduced - Whether appellant had tried to use the said seized FICN knowing them to be fake - A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mensrea of offences under Sections 489- B and 489-C is, "knowing or having reason to believe currency notes or banknotes are forged or counterfeit". (Para 12)
Findings of the Court :
From the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness it is see that though 52 nos. of 1000/ denomination fake currency notes was seized from the appellant there is no evidence that proves that the appellant was aware that the notes were faked and that she knowingly had tried to use them. The case IO himself admitted on cross examination that he could not make out whether notes were fake or not and that it was not possible for a layman to distinguish the note from genuine currency. The case I.O has also appeared to accept the explanation given by the appellant as to the circumstances which led to the Fake Indian Currency Notes being found in her possession - Thus in view of cited judgement of the Apex Court and from the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and also considering the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt.
Result : Criminal appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents.
2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, wherein, the appellant was convicted under Section 489 C IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 (three) months S.I with a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh,in default S.I for another 1 (one) year in its Order dated 16.11.2020.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to this appeal is that on 28.11.2016, 52 (fifty two) Nos. of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) of Rs. 1,000/- denominations worth Rs. 52,000/- was recovered and seized from the possession of the accused/appellant Smt. K. Lalbiaktluangi in the office of Transport Department, Chaltlang and in the presence of reliable witnesses. Another 278 (two hundred and seventy eight) Nos. of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) of Rs. 1000 denominations worth Rs. 5,78,000/- was recovered and seized from the possession of the co-accused Mr. C. Laltlanmawia at Chhinga Veng, Aizawl in the presence of reliable witnesses. On interrogation of the accused Mr. C. Laltlanmawia he was found to be the owner of seized Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN), another accused Mr. Lairothanga was also arrested and prosecuted accordingly. In the course of the investigation, the statements of the witnesses was recorded and the FSL report regarding the seized currency notes was also received and it was found that the notes were found not genuine Indian Currency notes but counterfeit. Accordingly the appellant along with the coaccused were sent for trial u/s 489 C IPC. Thereafter, the learned trail court framed charge under section 489C IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and asked for trial.
4. The prosecution examine as many as 6 (six) prosecution witnesses and 1 (one) defence witness was examined. The appellant on examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, denied the allegation made against her by explaining that she had received the Fake Indian Currency Notes from a lady named Mangi who had given her the money in an envelope which she was in turn suppose to give to a lady named Dinthari who had wanted to take a loan of Rs.50,000/- with interest. The appellant also stated that the money which was seized from her possession was fake but at the time it was seized she had no knowledge that it was fake.
5. Having considered the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court passed its Judgment & Order dated 12.11.2020, the appellant u/s 489C IPC convict sentencing the appellant to undergo 3 (three) months S.I with a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh, i.d. S.I for another 1 (one) year on 16.11.2020. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed.
6. Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant under Section 489 C IPC should be set aside since no mensrea has been proved by the prosecution and on reading of Section 489 ‘C’ IPC it provides that besides possession mensrea is the main ingredient that is required to be proved. That possession is not important unless mensrea has been proved. In support of his point, he has cited the judgment of the Apex Court in Umashanker Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 642, paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 and this Court’s judgment in Crl.A. No. 50/2019 dated 05.04.2022, paragraph No. 17.
7. Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the appellant has explained that the Judgment & Order was passed on 12.11.2020, which is during the peak Covid period and the appellant could not take necessary steps in the trial of the case due to Covid and also due to the shifting/transfer of the Trial Court. She could not get the chance to have the evidence of her defence witness recorded in the Court and that since she had changed her defence counsel, there was miscommunication and she was not informed of the Court dates, wherein she has been recorded as being absent
Point of Law : Possession mensrea - A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mensrea of offences under Sections 489- B and 489-C is, "knowing or having reason to believe currency note....
unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a fi....
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.
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....
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 significance of mens rea in offenses under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the requirement for the prosecution to prove t....
The judgment clarifies that mere possession of counterfeit currency does not equate to being a mastermind, and the role of the accused must be considered in sentencing.
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
