T.J. Mohan vs State by Inspector of Police

Rengasamy, J.—This revision is against the conviction and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge, Chingleput in Criminal Appeal No. 93/87

concurring with the conclusions of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruvellore in SC.201/86 for the offence u/s 489-C Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. This revision Petitioner was prosecuted along with nine other accused before the Assistant Sessions

Judge, Tiruvellore for the offences under Sections 120-B, 489-B read with 109 and 489-C Indian Penal Code. Even though this Petitioner was convicted by the trial Judge only for the offence under Sections 489-B and 489-C Indian Penal Code and acquitted of the charge u/s 120-B

Indian Penal Code, the Appellate Court set aside the conviction for the offence u/s 489-B Indian Penal Code also and confirmed the conviction only for the offence u/s 489-C Indian Penal Code. The sentence also was reduced to three years from five years.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the evidence against this Petitioner is only for the recovery of the counterfeit notes M.

Os.48 and 49 in the presence of PW.8 and apart from the recovery of the counterfeit currency, there is nothing to prove that this Petitioner had the knowledge that M Os.48 and 49 were counterfeit currencies or that he was having them with the intention of using the same as genuine and therefore when the evidence is wanting for such elements, he cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 489-C Indian Penal Code also. On a perusal of the evidence of PW.8 and the Investigating Officer PW. 13, they have spoken only about the seizure of M. Os.48 and 49 counterfeit currencies.

As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner Section 489-C Indian Penal Code will be attracted only if the person had the knowledge that the currency he possessed were counterfeit notes and that he intended to use them as genuine. But the learned Government

Advocate (Criminal Side) argued that this Petitioner possessed only these two currency notes namely M. Os.48 and 49 without any other genuine currency notes and therefore it can be easily inferred that he came with these currency notes only for using as genuine currencies. We cannot presume the mens rea for the possession of these currency notes, because any gullible person may accidently come into possession of such counterfeit currencies without knowing that they are counterfeit notes. Therefore when such possibilities cannot be ruled out certainly the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, when especially there is no other evidence to prove the knowledge of the revision Petitioner as to the nature of these currencies or that he had the intention of using the same as genuine currencies. The mere recovery of the counterfeit notes M. Os.48 and 49

cannot attract the punishment u/s 489-C Indian Penal Code, when the other elements required under the Section are wanting in this case. Hence,

the conviction of this Appellant for the offence u/s 489-C Indian Penal Code also is not proper and the same has to be set aside.

In the result, the conviction against this revision Petitioner is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The bail bond is canceled.