Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Mani - Appellant
Versus
State by, The Inspector of Police, Chennai - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2009
Decided On : 08-11-2018
For the Appellant : C. Prakasam
For the Respondent: T.P. Savitha
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea or reason to believe for the accused to be convicted under section 489(B) of IPC for dealing with counterfeit currency.
Headnote:
Counterfeit Currency - Criminal Conviction - IPC 489(B), 489(C) - The court discussed the provisions of IPC 489(B) and 489(C) and emphasized the requirement of mens rea for the accused to be convicted. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing the accused's knowledge or reason to believe that the currency note is counterfeit, referencing legal precedents to support the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for dealing with a counterfeit currency note under section 489(B) of IPC based on a complaint filed by the defacto complainant. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of witnesses and evidence of the counterfeit currency note and lorry used by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's knowledge or reason to believe that the currency note was counterfeit, as required under section 489(B) of IPC. The non-examination of key witnesses and lack of evidence regarding business transactions between the parties were fatal to the prosecution's case.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant had the requisite mens rea or reason to believe that the currency note was counterfeit, as required for conviction under section 489(B) of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the essential element of mens rea for the offence under section 489(B) of IPC, citing legal precedents such as M.Mamooti Vs State of Karnataka and Uma Shankar Vs. State of Chattisgarh to support its decision.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 489-B of IPC in the case.
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment made in S.C.No.322 of 2007 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions, (Fast Track Court III), Virudhachalam. The accused in the above Sessions case assails the Judgment of conviction for an offence under section 489(B) of IPC sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs.25,000/- fine and in default to pay fine amount to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment.
2. The appellant herein namely Mani is the Sole Accused and the charge stands that with due knowledge he dealt with a counterfeit currency note towards a payment to the defacto complainant namely K.Senthil Murugan. The corresponding final report leveling charges against accused was found filed by the respondent Police out of the Investigation conducted over defacto complainant’s complaint dated 04.12.1999.
3. According to Senthil Murugan, on 04.12.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. the accused herein who is engaged in groundnut wholesale business had purchased two bag i.e., 10kg of Manila (Groundnut) paying Rs.1200/- as sale price such that Rs.1200/- was paid in denomination of two 500 Rupee notes and two 200 Rupee notes. However, the said Senthil Murugan having found one of the 500 Rupee Currency Note varied in colour presented it to bank for getting change. Whereas it was returned by the Bank in pretext of counterfeit Currency, immediately the subject complaint dated 04.12.1999 came to be lodged by said Senthil Murugan as against accused/appellant calling for an action towards his fraudulent act of dealing with counterfeit currency note.
4. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.143 of 1999 by the respondent Police under section 439 (B) and 439 (C) of I.P.C. According to complaint the appellant and intermediates between himself and the accused also played role in aiding payment of a 500 Rupees counterfeit note. Accordingly, the FIR was registered against six persons including the appellant in Crime No.143 of 1999. The respondent Police conducted Investigation and filed their final report leveling charge against the accused for an offence under section 489(B) and (C) of I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Virudhachalam in PRC.No.25 of 2007. As the charge under Section 489 (B) and (C) being one to be tried by the learned Sessions Court it was committed before the learned Sessions Court, Cudalore and was made over for trial before the Trial Court for disposal. During investigation the allegations against other persons are untrue, the respondent police had not leveled charges against other accused excepting the appellant and thereby the appellant alone faced Criminal Charge in the above Crime Number. The said case was taken on file in the above S.C.No.322 of 2007.
5. To substantiate prosecution version, totally 15 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were marked, two material objects in M.O.1-the Counterfeit Currency and M.O.2-the lorry used by the appellant in his groundnut wholesale business were produced. During trial PW5, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, and PW12 turned hostile.
6. The learned trial Judge on appraisal of the evidence let in by prosecution concluded that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and thereby convicted the accused in above terms. As against the same the present Criminal Appeal by the Appellant/Accused.
7. I heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. T.P. Savitha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
8. As per prosecution case, on 04.12.1999, the Appellant/ Accused went for his business to Sirupaataan Village. PW4 Rajendran acted as Intermediary for ground nut purchase. The defacto complainant has sold his produce to appellant for a sum of Rs.1200/- and was paid through PW4 Rajendran.
9. It is further case of the defacto complainant that one of the 500 Rupee Notes differed slightly in colour to check its ge
