When court should not convict accused for possessing counterfeit currency?

In the case in hand, conviction for the offence punishable under Section 489C of IPC read with Section 34 thereof came to be recorded by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution. Section 489C of the IPC reads thus:

"489-C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes-Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged, or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both"

The first and foremost ingredient of this Section is that the accused must possess forged or counterfeit currency notes. However, mere possession is not enough to record conviction for the offence under Section 489C of the IPC. What is required to prove next is conscious possession of fake or counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, prosecution is obliged to establish by adducing cogent and clear evidence that at the time of possessing forged or counterfeit currency notes, accused persons were knowing that what they are possessing are forged or counterfeit currency notes. Such knowledge or reason for belief can also be established by surrounding circumstances emerging on record as conscious possession is a state of mind and the same is required to be inferred by all attending circumstances brought on record.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 426 of 2010 and Criminal Application No. 1634 of 2014

Decided On: 16.02.2017

 Allauddin Jallauddin Shaikh and Ors.

Vs.

State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Badar, J.

Citation:2017 ALLMR(CRI)947

Print Page

Whether accused can be convicted on sole evidence of investigation officer in respect of recovery of counterfeit currency?

Mr.Sunil Kale (PW14) has stated that pursuant to the
information   given   by   the   accused   No.1­Ranjana   earlier   on
24/10/2009, she on   25/10/2009 led  the police  party  and the
panchas to the house of the appellant.  That, this witness took the
search of the house i.e. hut of the appellant and found currency
notes of Rs.27,341/­ and four fake currency notes of Rs.500/­
denomination. The suggestion that he had actually not taken the
accused No.1­Ranjana to the house of the appellant, as put to him
in the cross­examination, was denied by him.   Interestingly, no
panch witness in support of the alleged seizure of the counterfeit
currency   notes   from   the   house   of   the   appellant   have   been
examined.  No reason for non­examining the same has been given.
Thus, there is only the evidence of the Investigation
Officer ­ Sunil Kale (PW14) in support of the allegation against the
appellant.  There is no explanation even before this Court, as to
why the pancha witnesses to the alleged recovery have not been
examined.
 I have carefully considered the matter.  There is no rule
certainly not of law ­ that the sole testimony of the Investigating
Officer   would   never   be   enough/sufficient   to   prove   the   fact   of
recovery   of   incriminating   articles   from   the   possession   of   an
accused.   However, here the prosecution claims that the recovery
was effected in the presence of two independent witnesses and

none of these two witnesses has been examined.  Non­availability
of evidence is one matter, but availability of evidence and holdingthe same back, is quite another.   In the instant case, since no
explanation   at   all   has   been   given   for   not   having   examined
independent   witnesses   ­   in   spite   of   associating   them   with   the
search operation ­ it would be unsafe to place reliance on the
evidence of P.W.No.14.  It would be legitimate to presume, that the
pancha   witnesses,   if   had   been   examined,   would   not   have
supported the case of the prosecution and that, that is why they
were held back.
In these circumstances, the trial Court ought not to
have   convicted   the   appellant   only   on   the   testimony   of   the
Investigating   Officer.   This   is   particularly   so,   because   the
prosecution case, when viewed as a whole, suffers from several
other   infirmities   and,   therefore,   clearly   the   evidence   of   the

Investigating Officer cannot easily and blindly accepted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.863 OF 2012
Manjur Samsuddin Shaikh
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.
DATED  : 30TH  JANUARY, 2015
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(cri) 4274

Print Page