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 order to establish the offense under Section 489C IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.09.2004, passed in Sessions Trial No.101 of 2001, State Vs. Mukesh Jain, by the court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun (for short, “the case”). By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 489 C IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. It has further been directed that in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one month.

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:-

On 06.09.2021, the police was on patrolling duty. They received an information that the appellant is having counterfeit currency notes and a revolver, who was standing near a car bearing Registration No. PB10U992. At 14:15 hours, the appellant was apprehended and from his possession, according to the prosecution, 83 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- each and a revolver were recovered. A recovery memo Ex. A2 was prepared and based on it, Crime No. 363 of 1999 under Section 489 C IPC and Crime No. 364 of 1999 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was lodged at Police Station Mussoorie, Dehradun. The currency notes were sent for examination at Currency Note Press, Nasik. A report was received. According to which, 82 notes were counterfeit and one was original. The recovered currency notes, according to prosecution were also sent to Reserve Bank of India (“RBI), which reported that all the 83 currency notes are counterfeit. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant under Section 498 C IPC. Cognizance was taken. On 18.08.2001, charge under Section 489 C IPC was framed against the appellant. To which, he denied and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined, in all nine witnesses, namely, PW1 Constable, Brijesh Kumar, PW2 Constable, Nazar Abbas Jaidi, PW3 Anil Kumar Joshi, PW4 Constable, Damodar, PW5 Constable, Manoj Kumar, PW6 Constable, Karam Veer Singh, PW7 Sub Inspector, Subedar Sah, PW8 Chintamani and PW9 Pramod Kumar Tiwari.

4. Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”). According to him, he has been falsely implicated. Nothing was recovered from him. He is innocent.

5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304 IPC and sentenced as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved by it, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised only three points in his submissions:-

(i) The prosecution case is not reliable because the serial number of currency notes is inconsistent in the documents filed by the prosecution.

(ii) The allegedly recovered currency notes serial number does not match with the serial number of the currency notes which were forwarded to the Government Press Nasik and to the RBI. It is argued that it doubts the prosecution case. In fact, it has also been argued that the genuine currency note was not forwarded to the Government Press Nasik whereas, the report of Government Press Nasik deals with the original or genuine currency note also.

(iii) Mere possession of counterfeit currency notes is not punishable. It has also to be proved by the prosecution that the offender had such counterfeit currency notes, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and the offender intended to use the same as genuine. It is argued that these ingredients have not been proved. This mental status cannot be presumed.

8. It is argued that the prosecution utterly has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charge.

9. In support of his contention, lea