2019 (11) TMI 1836 - HC - Indian Laws

Conviction for offence u/s 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the IPC - possession of FICN - Trafficking or not - quantum of sentences imposed - HELD THAT - he raid, interception and recovery were on the basis of secret information, the reception of which, and the modality of the raid and recovery have been noticed by us. 500 pieces of 100 rupees denomination FICN, 7 pieces of 1000 rupees denomination FTCN and 9 pieces of 500 rupees denomination FICN wrapped in a newspaper and kept in a polly bag were recovered from Mokaram Mondal (one of the accused). Sunil Pramanick (one of the appellants) was also searched and 27 pieces of 500 rupees denomination FICN were recovered. Jubeda Chitrakar (one of the appellants) whose house was also raided led to recovery of 20 pieces of 500 rupees denomination FICN and 5 pieces of 1000 rupees denomination FICN. Thereupon, Jubeda was arrested. Again search and seizure was conducted leading to recovery of FICN from different other accused persons who are not amongst the appellants. They were also convicted. The appellants did not offer any explanation when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the possession of FICN. Nor was any evidence adduced in defense to explain the possession of FICN. The possession of FICN of such quantity is trafficking, and, therefore, falling under the incriminating activity which made the accused/appellants offenders punishable under Section 489-B as well, apart from the liability for committing offences punishable under Section 489-C. For the afore-said reasons the conviction of the appellants under Sections 489-B as well as 489-C stands - the finding of guilt and the conviction of the appellants by the court below affirmed. Sentence imposed - court below has imposed rigorous imprisonment of eight years and fine of Rs. 8,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 489-B of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment of six years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 489-C of the IPC - HELD THAT - The offences which are described and punishment prescribed in the sections which are grouped under the Heading Of Currency-Notes and Bank Notes in Chapter XVIII of IPC are those, the commission of which would impact the authority of the State or Sovereign Power as well as the economic well being of the society. It is the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding sentence because awarding lesser sentence encourages any criminal and, as a result of the same, the society suffers. Imposition of sentence must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court must keep in view rights and needs of the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment - having regard to the quantity of FICN which has been recovered upon it being found to have been concealed and trafficked, there are no legal infirmity in the sentence imposed by the court below - Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is satisfied that different sentences of imprisonment and fine as well as default sentences imposed on the appellants do not call for interference. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants under the different counts are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the IPC.
2. Applicability of Section 34 IPC.
3. Establishment of mens rea.
4. Interpretation of "traffics" under Section 489-B.
5. Sufficiency of possession for conviction under Section 489-B.
6. Sentence imposed by the lower court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the IPC:
The appellants were convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the IPC, read with Section 34 IPC. The charges framed included Sections 489-B/489-C and 120-B IPC. However, the court found that the charge under Section 120-B was not established but there was sufficient evidence to apply Section 34 IPC, indicating common intention among the accused.

2. Applicability of Section 34 IPC:
The court below substituted Section 34 IPC for Section 120-B IPC, concluding that the accused acted with common intention. This was based on circumstantial evidence that indicated the accused had a shared intent to commit the offences.

3. Establishment of mens rea:
The court held that the accused could not plead the absence of mens rea. The non-examination of defense witnesses and lack of specific statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. led the court to conclude that the accused were aware the currency notes were counterfeit. The court emphasized that mens rea for Sections 489-B and 489-C involves knowledge or reason to believe the notes are counterfeit, coupled with the intention to use them as genuine.

4. Interpretation of "traffics" under Section 489-B:
The term "traffics" in Section 489-B was scrutinized. The court rejected the argument that "traffics" should be read ejusdem generis with "sells," "buys," or "receives." Instead, it held that "traffics" includes any form of dealing or trading in counterfeit currency, not limited to transactions involving two persons. The court cited precedents from the Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, which supported this broader interpretation.

5. Sufficiency of possession for conviction under Section 489-B:
The court concluded that mere possession of a significant quantity of counterfeit currency notes, especially when concealed, amounts to active transportation and trafficking. This interpretation aligns with the judicial precedents that equate such possession with trafficking under Section 489-B.

6. Sentence imposed by the lower court:
The lower court sentenced the appellants to rigorous imprisonment of eight years and a fine of Rs. 8,000/- for the offence under Section 489-B, and six years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 489-C, with sentences to run concurrently. The High Court upheld these sentences, emphasizing the gravity of the offences and the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the crime. The court found no legal infirmity or excessiveness in the sentences imposed.

Conclusion:
The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences imposed by the lower court, dismissing the appeals. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the state's authority and the economic well-being of society, thereby justifying the stringent sentences.