Section 489A IPC Not Intended To Punish An Unwary Possessor Or User Of Counterfeit Currency Notes: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court observed that Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code is not intended to punish an unwary possessor or user of counterfeit notes.
The Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the Accused who was convicted under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the mens rea of the Accused.
The Appeal was filed by the Accused before the High Court impugning the judgment and order passed by the Session Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:- “Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
The Bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed, “The provision of Section 489A is not intended to punish an unwary possessor or user and in the instant case, considering the conduct of the appellant, where he entered into an altercation with PW-3 regarding the question of genuineness of the notes seized from him, as well as considering the fact that the seized notes were not of a kind that could be easily distinguished from real note, it appears that the contention of the appellant which he made during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that he did not know that the notes possessed by him to be fake notes, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any materials to show that the appellant knew or having reasons to believe the currency notes seized from him are forged or counterfeit.”
Advocate P. Kataki appeared on behalf of the Appellant and Additional Public Prosecutor B.B. Gogoi appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
The Court also observed that “The fact that the seized currency was recovered from the possession of the present appellant has not been disputed even by the appellant. However, it appears that the contention of the appellant raised by him during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not been addressed properly by the trial court.”
Further, the Court was of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient regarding mens rea of the Accused to constitute an offence under Section 489B IPC.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and sent back the trial court record.
Cause Title: Dimbeswar Bobo v. The State of Assam
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate P. Kataki
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor B.B. Gogoi