A defendant must possess knowledge of the counterfeit nature of currency for conviction under IPC Section 489C; failure of prosecution to prove this led to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

1. The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 929 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam and he is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 489C IPC.

2. The Detective Inspector of C.B.C.I.D, Thiruvananthapuram charge sheeted the accused for the offence under Section 489C IPC. The prosecution case is that on 04.08.1987, at about 10.20 p.m., the accused was found in possession of one counterfeit 100 Dollar bill and attempting to exchange it as a genuine one at the public road near Thiruvananthapuram airport by the Sub Inspector of Valiyathura Police Station.

3. After committal, the trial court framed charge against the accused under Section 489C IPC and when the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.

4. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exhibits P1 to P7 and MO1 to prove the charge against the accused. No evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 489C IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

5. Heard Sri. Thareeq Anver, the learned State Brief representing the appellant and Smt. Hasnamol N.S., the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned State Brief representing the appellant argued that there is no evidence in this case to show that the accused was having knowledge that MO1 is a counterfeit Dollar bill and there is also no evidence to show that he made any attempt to exchange MO1 as a genuine one. But, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW3, Sub Inspector, and Exhibit P7 report would clearly show that the accused attempted to exchange MO1, counterfeit Dollar bill, with the knowledge that it is a counterfeit currency note.

7. The learned State Brief representing the appellant fairly conceded that Section 489C IPC is not restricted to Indian currency note alone; but, it includes Dollar also and it applies to American Dollar bills. In K. Hasim v. State of T.N. AIR 2005 SC 128, it was held as follows:

“43. Section 489C deals with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeited currency notes or bank notes punishable. Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeited notes are necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Sections 489C and 489D. As was observed by this Court in State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 33 the expression 'currency notes' is large and wide enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of any country. Section 489C is not restricted to Indian currency note alone but it includes dollar also and it applies to American dollar bills.)”

8. To attract the offence under Section 489C of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was in possession of the counterfeit note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine. So, the pertinent question is whether there is evidence to show that the accused was having the knowledge or reason to believe that MO1 is a counterfeit Dollar at the time of the alleged occurrence.

9. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he is a headload worker at Thiruvananthapuram