Conviction for possessing counterfeit currency requires proof of mens rea; possession of a single counterfeit note does not suffice for intent.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.07.2007 and 27.07.2007 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – 1, Krishnagar, Nadia, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 11 (January) 2007, arising out of Sessions Case No. 43(9)2006 convicting the appellant under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , for commission of offences punishable under Section s 489B /489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and thus directing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months, for commission of offence punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for commission of offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the sentences being directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated that the informant Golam @Gulam Kuddus the cashier employed in Debnath Auto Fuel Service situated adjacent to Katwa More. On 30.08.2005 at 2.00 a.m., one Tata 407 Car arrived at the petrol pump for procuring diesel and paid a sum of Rs.1336.44/- in denomination of one Five Hundred Rupee Note and several Ten and Twenty Rupees Notes. At the time of checking, the said Five Hundred Rupee Note was found to be counterfeit and the number of the note was 6AA162744. When the driver of the Tata 407 was asked for about this, he was unable to say anything. The informant confined this person and informed the owner of the petrol pump and after receiving the instructions from the owner, the informant reached the R.O.P. and lodged a complaint against the driver, Rahamat Ali who hereby, is the appellant.

3. Subsequently, Kaliganj Police Station Case No. 174 of 2005 dated 30.08.2005 under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation.

4. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Rahamat Ali, the appellant herein and the Learned Trial Judge framed charges against Rahamat Ali who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and commenced the process of trial.

5. During the trial, prosecution examined nine (9) witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

6. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that – i.

There has been non-seizure of essential articles, pertaining to the case.

ii.

The Learned Judge has failed to appreciate the ‘omissions amounting to contradictions’ in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

iii.

The Learned Judge in convicting the appellant, has totally ignored the contradictions between the statements made by the witnesses in the court and during their examination by the police.

iv.

The charge as was framed against the appellant, suffered from inherent lacunae, which caused severe prejudice to the appellant.

v.

In conducting of the prosecution of the instant case, there has been a non examination of material witnesses.

vi.

The prosecution has totally failed to adduce any evidence in regard to the presence of the necessary mens rea on the part of the appellant in committing the acts, which allegedly constituted offences charged.

vii.

The Learned Judge passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, on vague surmises and conjectures, in totally disbelief the defence plea of ‘innocence’, without assigning any cogent reason for such disbelief.

7. The Learned Advocate for the State submitted that a single piece of fake currency note will not comprise the alleged offence and left it to the discretion of the Court.

8. A circumspect