Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Lalit Mohan Bhagat and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another – Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1856 of 2019
Decided On : 11-05-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhagwat Mehra.
For the Respondent: Mr. Lalit Miglani.
Mens rea is an essential element for the offence under Section 489C IPC, and the mere possession of counterfeit currency notes by the petitioners, without establishing mens rea, did not constitute an offence.
Headnote:
Counterfeit Currency - Criminal Proceedings - Section 489 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were bank officers, were charged under Section 489 IPC for possession of counterfeit currency notes. The petitioners argued that they were not directly involved in receiving money and that the case against them was an abuse of process. The court considered the evidence and the legal principles to determine if a prima facie case was made out.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' role in the bank did not establish prima facie liability under Section 489C IPC. It emphasized the importance of mens rea in proving the offence and concluded that the prosecution case did not constitute an offence under Section 489C IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, as bank officers, could be held liable for possession of counterfeit currency notes under Section 489C IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of mens rea for the offence under Section 489C IPC and analyzed the evidence to determine if the petitioners had the necessary intent. It also referred to legal precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the Charge Sheet, cognizance order, and the entire proceedings of the Session Trial.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. The challenge in this petition is made to the Charge Sheet No. 13 of 2018, cognizance order dated 13.08.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 19 of 2019, State vs. Lalit Mohan Bhagat and Another (Initially, the challenge was made to the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 93 of 2019 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, but subsequently, it is argued that now that case has been committed which is now Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2019, pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora) under Section 498C IPC pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora (for short “the case”).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows. The currency notes sent from the State Bank of India (“SBI”), Branch Ranikhet to the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) were found counterfeit. Therefore, Reserve Bank of India directed lodging of an FIR in the matter. Accordingly, on 22.11.2017, an FIR under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D and 489E IPC was lodged against the petitioners.
4. The matter was investigated and finally charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners under Section 489 IPC. In its charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer (for short, “the IO”) records the result of investigation in two lines. According to it, after investigation, the Investigating Officer could get sufficient evidence that the petitioners were in possession of counterfeit currency notes. Based on this charge-sheet, on 13.08.2019, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 489C. This is the basis of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. The continuance of the case against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Petitioners were working in the State Bank of India, Branch Ranikhet. Petitioner no. 1 was Deputy Manager Cash and Petitioner No. 2 was working as an Accountant. They were not receiving any money as such from the customers. The money at the respective counters were being received by the cashiers and the cashiers would forward the received money to the petitioner no. 1 who happened to be the Deputy Manager Cash. It is argued that the role of Deputy Manager Cash was just to keep the money in safe custody of the Bank. The money was also being received from other Banks. Since it was a period of demonetization, there was huge rush. The money, as received, was transmitted to the Reserve Bank of India where it was detected that some of the currency notes were counterfeit.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation to argue that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety.
7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioners were in possession of the currency notes. It was their duty to ensure that no counterfeit currency notes are received in the Bank; It was their responsibility; They were responsible officers.
8. This petition was filed on 05.09.2019. On 05.11.2019, notices were issued and some interim orders were also passed but it appears that in between, the interim order could not remain in force and the proceeding of the case progressed.
9. Today, a statement is given that three witnesses have already been examined in the case. Such statement of the witnesses may not be useful for the purpose of determining the petition under Section 482 of the Code because essentially what is to be examined is as to whether there is any prima facie case.
10. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code. At this stage, deeper scrutiny of the material, in order to appreciate its credibility, truthfulness is to be avoided. At this stage the Court may not undertake a mini
