Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 433 (ALL)

RAJENDRA PRASAD v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-03-21

R.K.DASH

body2002
R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Sarvesh learned counsel far the petitioner and Shri Surendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate. ( 2 ) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. at the instance of the petitioner has been filed seeking far quashing of proceeding in case No. 772 of 2000 under Section 489, I. P. C. pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case as culled out from the material on record is that on 30. 3. 1999, the petitioner deposited a currency note of five hundred denomination with the Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur, which was found to be forged. On a report being lodged the police registered case crime No. 247 of 1999 at police station Kotwali, district Kanpur Nagar and after investigation laid charge sheet against the petitioner to, face the trial far the said offence. ( 4 ) IT would appear from the statement of the petitioner recorded during investigation copy whereof at Annexure 2, that he admitted to be having in possession of the aforesaid currency note which was a forged one. His case, however, was that he was an employee of the company of Shri B. P. Bagla and in such capacity he went to, the Reserve Bank, Kanpur Nagar to, deposit a huge sum of Rs. 21,83,040/- which were kept in bundles and of those amount one currency note of five hundred denomination was found to be forged. ( 5 ) SHRI Sarvesh, learned counsel far the petitioner contends that one of the criteria far fastening the petitioner with criminal liability under Section 489b being that the tenderer of forged currency note must have the knowledge or reason to believe the same to be a forged one and in the present case no, material having been placed by the prosecution through counter affidavit that the petitioner had knowledge or reason to, believe that the currency note in question was a forged one the charge sheet so, laid against the petitioner should be quashed. He further contends that keeping in mind the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India that no FIR need be lodged if on or two pieces of five hundred rupee notes of Ashoka Pillar Watermark design are detected as forged out of the notes tendered by customers/members of public criminal prosecution should not have been launched against the petitioner. ( 6 ) SHRI Surendra Singh, learned A. G. A. in his usual fairness contends that it could not be elicited during investigation that the petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe that currency note in question was not genuine. He, however, urges that whole matter should be left to be decided by the trial court on merit on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution. ( 7 ) SECTION 489b I. P. C. for the relevant purpose is extracted herein below. Using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes: Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note. knowing or having, reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for the term which may extend to ten years, and shall also 1?e liable to fine. ( 8 ) TO bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has to prove: (a) that the accused sold, bought, received or otherwise used forged currency note or counterfeit: (b) that he had knowledge or reason to believe that the said currency note or bank note is forged or counterfeit. ( 9 ) IN the present case so far the first ingredient is concerned, it is admitted by the petitioner that he had in his possession of the currency note in question which was forged one and the same he tendered in the Reserve Bank of India at Kanpur. But so far the second ingredient is concerned, there is no material on record to show that the knew or had reason to believe the said currency note to be forged. But so far the second ingredient is concerned, there is no material on record to show that the knew or had reason to believe the said currency note to be forged. His statement to the police rather proves his innocence, inasmuch as, the counterfeit currency note of five hundred denomination was kept in one of the bundles of several currency notes, which he had taken to the Bank for deposit as an employee of the company of Mr. B. P. Bagla. ( 10 ) IN Uma Shanker v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court held that mens rea or offence under Sections 489b and 489c is knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes of bank notes are forged or counterfeit. Without the aforementioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489b of I. P. C. In Uma Shanker (supra) the prosecution case was that the appellant having purchased one kilogram of mango for Rs. 5/- paid a fake currency note of Rs. 100/- to P. W. 4, who doubted its genuineness. He was prosecuted and ultimately found guilty by the trial court and on appeal the High Court confirmed the conviction, which he challenged before the Supreme Court. ( 11 ) THE present case stands on better footing. Here the petitioner was not in possession of one currency note of five hundred denomination, which was detected to be forged. He went to the Reserve Bank, Kanpur with several bundles of currency notes for depositing on behalf of company of Mr. Bagla and from one of the bundles one currency note of five hundred denomination was found to be forged. In such admitted fact situation it cannot be said that the petitioner had the knowledge or reason to believe that out of large number of currency notes one was forged. I am therefore, of the view that the petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability for the offence under Section 489b I. P. C. ( 12 ) REGARD being had to the fact and circumstances of the case as discussed above. I am of the opinion that continuance of the aforementioned criminal proceeding against the petitioner would be abuse of the process of the Court. I am of the opinion that continuance of the aforementioned criminal proceeding against the petitioner would be abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly proceeding in case No. 772 of 2000, under Section 489b I. P. C. pending in the court of A. C. J. M. 1st. Kanpur Nagar against the petitioner is quashed. Consequently this criminal miscellaneous application is allowed. Petition allowed. .