2019 (4) TMI 1194 - HC - Indian Laws

Fake Note/Counterfeit Money - Section 489(B) of Indian Penal Code - presence of element of mens rea or not - whether on the basis of the material collected by the investigating agency and on the basis of which chargesheet has been filed, whether invocation and application of Section 489(B) of IPC against the Petitioner is justified? HELD THAT - Mere possession of the counterfeit notes is not punishable under law and it must be established by prosecution that possession was with a knowledge that the said currency notes are fake or counterfeit. In such circumstances, in absence of any evidence brought on record by the prosecution as a part of chargesheet to demonstrate that possession of the Petitioner of the alleged currency notes which were deposited by her in the bank on 19th December, 2016 was with a knowledge that the same were counterfeit, Petitioner cannot tried for an offence under Section 489(B) in absence of any material to attribute such a knowledge on her part. This is a fit case where we should exercise our inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and in any contingency even on culmination of a trial, the charge leveled against the Petitioner cannot be proved and would result into an acquittal - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner had "knowledge" or "reason to believe" that the currency notes were counterfeit.
2. Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient for the offence under Section 489(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. Whether the continuation of trial against the petitioner constitutes an abuse of process of law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Knowledge or Reason to Believe:
The petitioner, a well-educated individual, deposited old currency notes during the demonetization period. On 19th December 2016, she deposited ?40,500, out of which ?4,000 were found to be counterfeit. The prosecution's case hinges on whether the petitioner knew or had reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit. The petitioner argued that she was unaware of the counterfeit nature of the notes and had complied with all bank procedures. The court examined the chargesheet and found no evidence suggesting that the petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe the notes were counterfeit. The counterfeit notes were identified as "High Quality Counterfeit Notes," which even experts took time to verify, indicating that an average person, including the petitioner, could not have easily identified them as counterfeit.

2. Mens Rea as an Essential Ingredient:
The court emphasized that mens rea, or the intention to commit a crime, is a crucial element for offences under Section 489(B) of IPC. The section requires that the accused must have "knowledge" or "reason to believe" that the currency notes are counterfeit. The court cited several judgments, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Umashankar vs. State of Chattisgrah and M. Mammutti vs. State of Karnataka, which reiterated that mens rea is necessary for convicting someone under Section 489(B). The court noted that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence showing that the petitioner had the requisite mens rea.

3. Abuse of Process of Law:
Given the lack of evidence establishing the petitioner's knowledge or belief that the notes were counterfeit, the court concluded that continuing the trial would be an abuse of process of law. The court held that mere possession of counterfeit notes is not punishable unless it is proven that the possession was with the knowledge that the notes were counterfeit. The court decided to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the Sessions Case No. 699 of 2017 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, arising out of CR No. 22 of 2017 registered with Parksite Police Station, Vikhroli, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Section 489(B) of IPC. The rule was made absolute, and no costs were imposed.