1986 (11) TMI 355 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether counterfeit American dollar notes will fall within the purview of Sections 489A and 489C of the Indian Penal Code? Held that - Appeal allowed. The omission of an explanation in Sec. 489A for the expression currency note similar to the one for 'hank note' thus assumes importance. The expression could refer only to the currency notes issued by the Government of India. applicable to currency notes other than Indian currency notes. And in holding that counterfeiting of or possessing of counterfeit dollar bills or dollar notes is not an offence under the Indian law, thereby issuing a carte blanche to the counterfeiters of the world to establish their headquarters within the State of Kerala with a view to carry on their activities with impunity under the umbrella unwittingly opened for them by the judgment of the High Court. The view taken by the High Court is thus thoroughly unsustainable. The judgment and order of discharge rendered by the High Court are therefore reversed and set aside. The matter will not to go back to the trail court for proceeding further in accordance with law in the light of the observations made hereinabove

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Sections 489A and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding counterfeiting of foreign currency notes.
2. Validity of the discharge order by the Sessions Court and the High Court's affirmation of the same.
3. Legislative intent behind the terms "currency note" and "bank note" in the context of counterfeiting laws.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Sections 489A and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding counterfeiting of foreign currency notes:

The Supreme Court analyzed the language of Section 489A, which penalizes counterfeiting "any currency note or bank note." The Court emphasized that the term "any currency note" is broad and includes currency notes from any country, not just India. The legislative intent, as inferred by the Court, was to encompass all currency notes within the prohibition against counterfeiting, thereby protecting citizens from being deceived by counterfeit currency of any origin. The Court criticized the Kerala High Court's interpretation, which restricted the scope of Sections 489A and 489C to only Indian currency notes, terming it as "judicial activism in reverse gear."

2. Validity of the discharge order by the Sessions Court and the High Court's affirmation of the same:

The Sessions Court had discharged the accused on the grounds that Sections 489A and 489C of the IPC apply only to Indian currency notes, a view upheld by the Kerala High Court. The Supreme Court found this interpretation flawed, stating that the High Court's decision to limit the scope of these sections was unwarranted and contrary to the legislative intent. The Supreme Court reversed the discharge order, directing the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.

3. Legislative intent behind the terms "currency note" and "bank note" in the context of counterfeiting laws:

The Supreme Court scrutinized the definitions and legislative intent behind the terms "currency note" and "bank note" as used in Sections 489A to 489E of the IPC. The Court noted that the explanation to Section 489A explicitly defines "bank note" to include notes issued by any State or Sovereign Power, thereby extending the prohibition to foreign currency notes. The Court criticized the High Court for overlooking this broad definition and for erroneously importing the definition of "currency note" from the Indian Paper Currency Act, 1822, which is not applicable to the IPC.

The Supreme Court concluded that the legislative intent was to protect the public from counterfeit currency of any kind, whether Indian or foreign. The Court emphasized that the judiciary's role is to interpret the law in a manner that effectuates the legislature's intent, not to narrow the scope of the law based on unfounded assumptions.

Outcome:

The Supreme Court reversed the Kerala High Court's judgment and the Sessions Court's discharge order, holding that Sections 489A and 489C of the IPC apply to counterfeiting of foreign currency notes. The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the interpretation of the relevant sections should include foreign currency notes, thus ensuring that counterfeiting such notes is indeed an offense under Indian law.