[S. 489B IPC] Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Man For Using Counterfeit Currency Without Knowing, Says No Mens Rea

The Gauhati High Court on Tuesday set aside the conviction and sentence order of a man passed by the Trial Court under Section 489B (Using as genuine, forged, or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes) of IPC, on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the mens rea of the accused-appellant necessary to constitute an offense under the said provision.

While setting aside the conviction, the single-judge bench comprising Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed that the prosecution had failed to bring on record any materials to show that the appellant knew or had reasons to believe the currency notes seized from him were forged or counterfeit.

It was submitted that on February 24, 2005, the accused-appellant was apprehended and confined in the office room of Balijan Bazar Committee while he was purchasing goods in the market by allegedly giving some counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/-. A case was registered against the accused under Section 489B of IPC.

The Trial Court through judgment dated January 05, 2011, convicted the accused-appellant under the said provision and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

The Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court had erred in arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the present appellant under Section 489B of IPC as no evidence had been laid to show that the appellant knew or had any reason to believe that the seized notes were forged or counterfeit.

It was further argued that the appellant during examination under Section 313 of CrPC has categorically stated that he sold 20 bags of betel nut at the rate of Rs. 1250/- per bag and the buyer, while making the payment gave him the fake notes also along with other notes and therefore, he was not aware of the fact that he was possessing fake currency.

Thus, it was submitted that without proving the mens rea, mere possession of the said counterfeit notes is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 489B of IPC.

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted that all the witnesses for the prosecution side have stated categorically that fake currency notes were found in possession of the appellant and the same were also used for purchasing sweets and shoes by the appellant. It was argued that the burden of proving that the appellant did not know the seized notes to be fake is on the appellant.

The Court noted:

“In the instant case, if we peruse the testimony of PW-3, with whom the appellant entered into an altercation on purchasing some articles from him and giving 100 rupees note to him on the question of the genuineness of the said note. It appears that it was only after the said altercation that he was apprehended by the members of Bazar Committee. If he had intended to use the fake note clandestinely, he would not have engaged into an altercation with the PW-3. His engagement in an altercation is an indication that he believes that the notes given by him to the PW-3 are genuine.”

It was further highlighted by the Court that the testimony of PW-6, Senior Scientific Officer, Question Documents Division, Forensic Science Laboratory, revealed that the fake currency notes examined by him were not of such type that any common person would be able to differentiate between the said note and real currency notes.

Thus, the Court said that it would not be wrong to presume that the appellant did not know that the notes possessed by him were fake.

“Under abovementioned circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution side has failed to prove the essential ingredient regarding the mens rea of the present appellant necessary to constitute an offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code,” it added.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 11

Case Title: Dimbeswar Bobo v. The State of Assam

Case No.: Crl.A./39/2011

Click Here To Read/Download Order