When accused should not be held guilty for possessing fake currency notes?

 Now, coming to the Judgment of the Trial Court, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion so far as the intention, knowledge of the accused is concerned, on the basis of imagination. At paragraph 26 the learned Sessions Judge has observed that :

"If the accused was innocent and he was in possession of those fake notes without his knowledge, then to my mind it was obligatory on his part to explain his innocence in the matter. For the reasons best known to the accused, he has kept silent while he was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he has not given any iota of explanation. His silence during the time of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is one of the strong circumstances against him".

The above said observation by the learned Sessions Judge, in my opinion, is not correct and proper. The innocence of the accused shall be initially presumed by the Courts. On the basis of the materials on record, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the innocence of the accused is successfully destroyed by the prosecution then only it becomes obligatory on the part of the accused to open his mouth and prove his innocence. In this particular case, I have already observed, the Sessions Judge himself has not narrated any evidence against him with reference to his knowledge or reasonable belief with regard to the conscious possession of counterfeit currency notes, then the question of the accused explaining any incriminating material against him does not arise.The further observation of the Sessions Judge that the accused due to day to day business might have come to know about the genuine currency notes and fake currency notes. There is long long way to travel between, the accused might have known or must have known, the Court should be very specific, on the basis of the evidence. Whatever observations made by the learned Sessions Judge above, in my opinion, are not based on any evidence on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said one of the decisions has also observed that in day to day business, people may come across the fake currency notes and they may receive several fake notes in the course of their business, it cannot be held that the accused is guilty.

Karnataka High Court

Mahendrasingh Khetsing Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2014

Author: K.N.Phaneendra

Print Page

Bombay HC ; Mere possession of fake notes can’t be termed as an offence

Observing that mere possession of counterfeit notes cannot be termed as an offence and prosecution is required to prove that the person had knowledge that the notes were fake, the Bombay High Court has set aside the conviction and five year sentence awarded to a man.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai was hearing an appeal filed by one Munshi Mohammed Shaikh challenging a sessions court order of October 2013, convicting him under sections 489 (b) and 489 (c) of IPC fors possession of counterfeit notes and sentencing him to five years in jail.

According to the prosecution, on December 19, 2011, Shaikh went to suburban Kurla branch of Punjab National Bank to deposit ₹9,500 cash. He handed 17 notes of ₹500 and one ₹1,000 note to the cashier.

Print Page