Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Munindra Haloi S/o Shri Bhaben Haloi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Crl. Pet. Nos. 171, 393 of 2013
Decided On : 14-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: B.M. Choudhury, U. Choudhury, M.S. Sundi, D. Gupta
IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that charges under Section 489B IPC require prima facie evidence of knowledge regarding counterfeit currency, which was lacking in this case.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Framing of charges - The court emphasized that charges can only be framed when prima facie evidence exists indicating the accused's involvement in the crime. The court found no material suggesting mens rea or culpability of the accused in the alleged offense of using counterfeit currency notes. (Paras 24, 29)
(B) Criminal Law - The principles governing the framing of charges were reiterated, highlighting the necessity for clear and unambiguous accusations against the accused. The court ruled that mere possession of counterfeit notes without evidence of knowledge or intent does not warrant charges under Section 489B IPC. (Paras 7, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the framing of charges under Sections 489B/34 IPC, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against them regarding the use of counterfeit currency notes.
Findings of Court:
The court found no prima facie evidence to support the charges against the petitioners, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.
Issues: The main issues were whether the materials collected by the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused and the interpretation of mens rea in the context of the charges framed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for charges under Section 489B IPC, there must be prima facie evidence of knowledge or belief regarding the counterfeit nature of the currency notes, which was absent in this case.
Result: Charges quashed and petitioners discharged.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. Pet. No. 393/2013 and Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. Pet. No. 171/2013. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, (APP) Assam for the respondent.
2. These two criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are taken up together for final disposal as by these two petitions, two accused persons have challenged the impugned order dated 07.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4 (FTC), Kamrup, Guwahati, whereby the charges were framed against both the petitioners under Sections 489B/34 IPC in Sessions Case No. 205(k)/2012.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are recorded herein-below:
(i) On 12.01.2010, one Chandan Kumar Goswami lodged an FIR before the Officer In-charge of Jalukbari Police Station inter alia alleging that when he went to IDBI Bank ATM at Maligaon Chariali and withdrew cash amount of Rs. 2,500/- (two thousand five hundred only) from the said ATM, he received total 25 numbers of 100 rupees denomination currency notes from the ATM machine and out of which, he suspected one 100 rupees note to be fake. Accordingly, he informed the same to the security guard who was on duty in the said ATM at the relevant point of time and asked the security guard whether any contact number of the bank or complaint book was available. However, when the guard replied in negative, having no alternative, he displayed the said 100 rupee note and the receipt in front of the camera fixed at the ATM machine. Accordingly, the informant lodged an FIR for investigation.
(ii) On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 27/2010 under Sections 489A/489B IPC was registered and the investigation was initiated. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in said Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 27/2010 and two petitioners herein were sent for trial. The committal Court committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge being session triable case.
(iii) The petitioners urged for their discharge before the learned Sessions Judge contending that the materials collected and the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation, even if accept to be correct, no material under Section 489B IPC was made out. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4 (FTC), Kamrup, Guwahati under its impugned order dated 07.02.2013 declined to accept such contention and accordingly, charges were framed under Sections 489B/34 IPC against the present petitioners.
4. Being aggrieved, the present petitions are filed. Similar argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court that the learned Sessions Judge has committed serious error of law and facts and ignored the settled propositions of law while framing the charges inasmuch as even if the prosecution materials are accepted to be corrected, the petitioners could not have been charged under Section 489B IPC. In support of such contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad Maqbool Margrey and others, 2022 (12) SCC 657, the State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC Online SC 1294.
5. On the other hand, Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly framed charges inasmuch as mini trial cannot be carried out at the stage of framing of charge and there are clinching material which raises grave suspicion against both the petitioners being involved in committing offence.
6. It is also contended by Mr. Borthakur, learned APP that at the stage of framing charges, the Court has power to see and weigh the evidence collected by the investigating authority, for a limited purpose of finding out whether any prima-fa
