JUDGMENT 1. - All these three appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2001 passed by the Special Court (Forge Currency Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur (Rajasthan), by which he has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner. Appellants Dharmesh Kumar, Pooran Mai and Nemi Chand: Convicted under Section 489-A read with Section 120-B IPC and each was sentenced to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof, each was to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Appellants Manoj and Suresh : Convicted under Secs. 489-C and 489-B read with Section 120-B IPC and each was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years under each count with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof, each was to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 4. Succinctly stated the material facts giving rise to all the appeals are that on 4.6.1999 at 12.15 AM, PW 35 Rajendra Singh, SHO, Police Station Sadar, Bikaner received an information to the effect that 4 persons having forge currency notes with them were on way from Loonkaransar to Bikaner in a Maruti 800 Car. Having received this information, the SHO along with police officials and Flying Squad left the Police Station in a Government Jypsy and reached Ganganagar Road and started surrounding the place in front of Chain Singh Stadium. During the process, at about 3.00 AM, he stopped a Maruti 800 Car of red colour bearing No. DL 2 CD 1377, which was coming from the side of Ganganagar. The SHO brought out the four persons from the said car and on enquiry the driver disclosed his name as Mahendra Singh. Since, it was in the late night and independent witnesses could not be procured, the SHO conducted the search. During search, he recovered 100 forged notes of Rs. 500/- each from the left pocket of the trouser of accused Mahendra Singh. Each note contained same number, viz., 5 CU 877924. The person sitting near the driver's seat disclosed his name as Rajesh, from whose pocket the SHO recovered 10 notes of Rs. 500/- each. During search, he recovered 100 forged notes of Rs. 500/- each from the left pocket of the trouser of accused Mahendra Singh. Each note contained same number, viz., 5 CU 877924. The person sitting near the driver's seat disclosed his name as Rajesh, from whose pocket the SHO recovered 10 notes of Rs. 500/- each. The notes contained the same number similarly, the persons sitting at the back seat of the car disclosed their names as Suresh and Manoj @ Subhash. The SHO recovered 9 forged notes of Rs. 500/- each from Suresh and 17 notes of Rs. 500/- each from accused Manoj. The notes recovered from Suresh and Manoj also contained same number viz., 5 CU 877924. The genuine Indian currency worth Rs. 2180, 650, 1100 and 1161 was also recovered from accused Mahendra Singh, Rajesh, Suresh and Manoj respectively. The SHO sealed the forged and genuine currency separately on the spot and arrested the accused persons. He also took in possession the car. Having reached the Police Station, he recorded the FIR and prepared the seizure memo Ex.P2. 5. In the course of interrogation, the accused persons disclosed that they along with their associates, namely, Nemi Chand, Dharmesh, Pooran and Prem have printed the notes on computer and they had left Sikar for setting in motion the said notes in different towns. 6. On the above report, a case vide FIR No. 216/99 was registered for offence under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C and Section 120B IPC and further investigation was handed over to PW 36 Mahendra Singh, Sub Inspector, who after completion if investigation submitted a charge sheet against the present appellants in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate no.2, Bikaner. 7. The learned Magistrate after committal proceedings, committed the case to the Special Court (Forge Currency Cases), Jaipur. 8. The learned trial court, after hearing arguments of counsel for the Parties, framed charges against the appellants under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 120B and 420 IPC. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 44 witnesses and exhibited numerous documents. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.RC. and they did not examine any person in their defence. 9. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 44 witnesses and exhibited numerous documents. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.RC. and they did not examine any person in their defence. 9. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court having found the accused appellants guilty of the offence under Sections 489A, B, C read with Section 120B IPC, convicted them under the above sections and sentenced them in the manner as stated herein-above. Hence, these three appeals. 10. I have learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case and the judgment under appeals. 11. To start with, it may be mentioned that the entire controversy rests soley on the recovery of forge currency notes and the question, therefore, emerges is, whether the recovered currency notes were counterfeit? 12. Answer to the question set out above is in affirmative. Ex.R 27 is the report of Currency Note Press, a perusal of which makes it crystal clear that all notes of Rs. 500/- each contained identical numbers viz., 5 CU/877924. On examination of notes by the expert it was found that length and width of the notes concerning cut size of the notes and size of printed design were not correct. The paper used was double and the main watermarks, other watermarks and security thread were consent. The recovered noted were also found to be slightly thicker than the genuine note papers. As regards printing colours, it was found that the ink shades do not match with the shades of genuine notes and the Fluorescent inks were not used. The colours used were easily soluble in water. The Assistant Works Manager, Currency Notes Press, after thorough checking, recorded his conclusion as given below; ON FRONTS : The body printing lacks sharpness. The Tint is printed with water soluble inks and it is in the form of dots and not in line pattern. The words M.K. Gandhi are un-sharp and not easily readable. The Rosette design in the centre of the note lacks sharpness and is broken. The R.B.i, seal lacks sharpness and fine details are crude. ON BACKS ; The floral design lacks sharpness. The printing ink colours do not match with these of genuine notes. 13. The words M.K. Gandhi are un-sharp and not easily readable. The Rosette design in the centre of the note lacks sharpness and is broken. The R.B.i, seal lacks sharpness and fine details are crude. ON BACKS ; The floral design lacks sharpness. The printing ink colours do not match with these of genuine notes. 13. The Expert concluded that the referred notes of Rs. 500/-denomination are counterfeit. 14. Thus, in view of the report, Ex.R 27 there is no escape from inevitable conclusion that the recovered currency notes were forged and counterfeited. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants have contended that means rea of the offence under Sections 489B and 489C IPC is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or bank notes are forged or counterfeit and, therefore, in the instant case the said means rea cannot be presumed merely on the basis of the fact that the accused were found to be in possession of counterfeit notes, in this view of the matter, learned counsel submitted that conviction of appellants Manoj and Suresh under Sections 489C and 489B read with Section 120- B IPC is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of the above argument, learned counsel have placed relianced on a decision of the Apex Court in Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3074 , wherein it has been held as under- "A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that means rea of offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C is, "knowing or having reasons to believe the currency notes or bank-notes are forged or counterfeit". Without the afore-mentioned means 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 489-B of I.RC. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank-notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489-C in the absence of mens rea, noted above. No material is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant had the requisite means rea. The High Court, however, completely missed this aspect. No material is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant had the requisite means rea. The High Court, however, completely missed this aspect. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 7 that they were able to make out that currency note alleged to have been given to PW 4, was fake "Presumed" such a means rea. On the facts of this case the presumption drawn by the trial court is not warranted under Section 4 of the Evidence Act. Further it is also not shown that any specific question with regard to the currency-notes being fake or counterfeit was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. On these facts we have no option but to hold that the charges framed under Sections 489B and 489-C are not proved. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Sections 489B and 489-C of I.RC. and acquit him of the said charges". 16. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Umashanker's case (supra), I shall now proceed to deal with the above argument in regard to conviction of Appellants Manoj and Suresh for offence under Sections 489C and 489B read with Section 120B IPC. Before dealing with the argument, it would be profitable to refer to the provisions. Section 489C IPC and its ingredients, which read as under- 489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank note-whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe 1 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 punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or both. The ingredients of Section 489C IPC are : 1. The note must be a currency notes or a bank note, 2. Such note must have been forged or counterfeited, 3. The accused must be in its possession, 4. he must be knowing or must have reason to believe that the note 1 was forged or counterfeited, and 5. He must have intended to use such note as genuine. 17. The note must be a currency notes or a bank note, 2. Such note must have been forged or counterfeited, 3. The accused must be in its possession, 4. he must be knowing or must have reason to believe that the note 1 was forged or counterfeited, and 5. He must have intended to use such note as genuine. 17. Having referred the provisions of Section 489C IPC and its ingredients, I shall now discuss the relevant prosecution evidence to find out whether the conviction of two appellants Manoj and Suresh under Sections 489C and 489B i read with Section 120B IPC. 18. PW 2 Saiamat Khan, Assistant Sub. Inspector, has stated 100 forged currency notes of Rs. 500/- each were recovered from the possession of accused Mahendra Singh, 10 forged notes of Rs. 500/- each were recovered from the possession of accused Rajesh, 9 forged notes of Rs. 500/- were 2 recovered from Suresh and 17 forged currency notes were recovered from the pocket of accused Manoj. The witness further stated that on enquiry by the SHO, the accused persons disclosed that they alongwith alongwith their associates, namely, accused Nemi Chand Kumawat, Dharmesh and Pooran Mai have collectively prepared these forged notes with the help of computer and other equipments. 19. PW 14 Ramanuj Singh has stated that having received information, the police party encircled the accused persons and arrested accused Mahendra, Manoj, Suresh and Subhash who were travelling in a Maruti Car 2DLC 1370 and recovered forged currency notes of Rs. 68000/- : and also recovered genuine notes of Rs. 5091. All notes contained similar number. 20. PW 15 Ast Ali Khan, Head Constable has deposed that similar to what has been deposed by PW 2 Saiamat Khan. 21. PW 16 Jai Kumar, Constable has stated in his statement that forged : notes of Rs. 500/- amounting to Rs. 68000 were recovered from the possession of accused Mahendra Singh, Rajesh, Suresh and Manoj and all these forged notes were of same series. 22. PW 25 Sant Singh, who at the relevant time was Flying Incharge has stated that on the fateful night at about 3.00 AM, a red coloured Maruti Car No. -DL 2CD 1377 was stopped and checked. Four persons were travelling in the said car. On enquiry, the accused disclosed their names as Mahendra Singh, Suresh, Rajesh and Manoj. 22. PW 25 Sant Singh, who at the relevant time was Flying Incharge has stated that on the fateful night at about 3.00 AM, a red coloured Maruti Car No. -DL 2CD 1377 was stopped and checked. Four persons were travelling in the said car. On enquiry, the accused disclosed their names as Mahendra Singh, Suresh, Rajesh and Manoj. On search of these 4 persons, forged currency notes of Rs. 500/- of the value of Rs. 68000/- were recovered from their possession. 23. PW 35 Rajendra Singh, SHO arrested 4 accused and lodged the first information report has in his statements given the details of the forged currency notes recovered from each of the accused. He has also given the details of the genuine currency notes recovered from them. He further stated that on enquiry from the accused, they disclosed that Nemichand, Dharmesh, Pooran and Prem are also their associates and that they collectively printed these notes and that they had left Sikar for putting these notes into motion as genuine notes in different towns. 24. Exhibit-P2 is the seizure memo of forged currency notes of Rs. 68000/- as also the genuine notes of Rs. 5091/- recovered from the possession of accused Mahendra Singh, Rajesh, Manoj and Suresh. 25. From the evidence discussed above it is fully proved that 9 and 17 notes of Rs. 500/- each denomination were recovered from the possession of appellant Suresh and Manoj, respectively. It is also proved that the currency notes recovered from the possession of accused bear the same number and therefore, the notes recovered were of such a nature that mere lock at them would convince anybody that they were counterfeited and thus, in such circumstances, presumption of mens rea can reasonably be drawn. I am fortified in my view by a decision of the Apex Court in M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka, 1979 (4) SCC 723 , wherein their Lordships have held that if the notes were of such a nature that mere look at them would convince anybody that it was counterfeit, such a presumption could reasonably be drawn. I am fortified in my view by a decision of the Apex Court in M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka, 1979 (4) SCC 723 , wherein their Lordships have held that if the notes were of such a nature that mere look at them would convince anybody that it was counterfeit, such a presumption could reasonably be drawn. Thus, it must be concluded that the charge under Section 489-C IPC stands established as against appellants Manoj and Suresh, inasmuch as there was sufficient material before the trial court to conclude that these two appellants had the requisite mens rea and, hence their conviction under the above section deserves to be maintained. 26. Now I shall proceed to deal with conviction of appellants under Section 489 B IPC with the aid of Section 120 IPC. 27. The prosecution has examined PW 1 Mangha Ram, PW 39 Mohan Lal and PW 38 Jagdish to prove that appellant Suresh used the counterfeit notes of Rs. 500/- as genuine by making payment of goods purchased by him from PW 1 Mangha Ram. PW 32 Suresh Chand has also deposed in his statement that accused Suresh furnished information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and pursuant to his information, he recovered Rs.500/-counterfeit notes from Mangha Ram, Vide memo Ex.P 4. However, PW 1 Mangha Ram and witnesses of recovery memo Ex. P4, namely PW 38 Jagdish and PW 39 Mohan Lal have not supported the prosecution case and they were declared hostile.23. Likewise, the prosecution has tried to prove that consequent upon the information (Ex. P 39) furnished by accused appellant Manoj counterfeit note of Rs. 500/- was recovered from Deva Ram PW 19 vide recovery me/no Ex.P 18. However PW 19 Deva Ram and PW 30 Basarrt Kumar who is a witness to the recovery memo Ex.P 18 have not supported the prosecution case. Vinod Kumar, another witness to the recovery memo has not been examined by the prosecution.29. Similarly, the prosecution has examined PW 1 Madan Lal to prove that accused appellant Manoj delivered to him a counterfeit note of Rs. 500/- in consideration of goods purchased and for which Manoj furnished information, Ex.P 39 under section 27 of the Evidence Act. But PW 1 Madan Lal too has not supported the recovery.30. Similarly, the prosecution has examined PW 1 Madan Lal to prove that accused appellant Manoj delivered to him a counterfeit note of Rs. 500/- in consideration of goods purchased and for which Manoj furnished information, Ex.P 39 under section 27 of the Evidence Act. But PW 1 Madan Lal too has not supported the recovery.30. PW 4 Shanker Lal, PW 19 Hari Ram, PW 20 Bajrang Lal have been examined by the prosecution to prove the recovery memo Ex.R6 by which the counterfeit note of Rs. 500/- was recovered on the information and at the Instance of accused Mahendra Singh. PW 5 Nagarmal, PW 22 Vijay Kumar and PW 41 Ram Chandra were examined to prove Memo, Ex.P 8 regarding recovery of counterfeit note of Rs. 500/- made in pursuance of the information and at the instance of accused Mahendra Singh. Likewise, PW 7 Ramesh Kumar, PW 24 Ratan Lal and PW 29 Poora Ram have been examined to prove the memo, Ex.R 12 in respect of recovery at the instance and on the information of accused Mahendra Singh. The prosecution has also examined PW 15 Shanker Lal and PW 23 Bheeva Ram to prove recovery memo Ex.R 14. PW 33 Dharampal was examined to prove recovery memo Ex.P.30. Lastly PW 42 Pratap Singh, PW 43 Bhoopendra and PW 44 Pappu have been examined to prove the recovery memo Ex.P40. All these witnesses were sought to be examined by the prosecution to prove the memos of the recovery of counterfeit notes of Rs.500/- at the instance and on the information of accused Mahendra Singh (still absconding). However, these witnesses referred to above have not supported the prosecution case. Thus in my considered view, there is not an iota of evidence to conclude that accused appellants Suresh and Manoj conspired to use the counterfeit notes as genuine in making purchases of goods from different persons. Thus, the only inevitable conclusion that can be drawn is that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the charge under Section 489B read with Section 120B IPC against appellants Suresh and Manoj and hence they deserve to be acquitted of the said offence.31 Now remains the question as to whether the conviction of appellants Nemi Chand, Pooran and Dharmesh under Section 489 read with Section 120B IPC is sustainable?32. In the course of investigation, accused Mahendra Singh furnished information Ex.R32 on 4.6.99 to the Investigating Officer Mahendra Singh to the effect that computer and its accessories are in possession of appellant Pooranmal. Consequent upon the information of accused Mahendra Singh, the Investigating officer arrested appellant Pooranmal on 5.6.1999 at 12.00 noon vide arrest memo Ex.R33. Appellant Pooranmal furnished information, Ex.R35 for recovery of computer and its accessories on 5.6.99 at 12.45 PM and in pursuance of his information, one computer and accessories were recovered vide memo Ex.R22 from his house in the presence of PW 18 Poola Ram. However, this witness to the recovery of computer and accessories has not supported the prosecution version.33. It also appears that at the request of Harendra Singh, PW 31, Om Prakash Seevar Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bikaner summoned Suresh Prasad, Computer Expert, or 30.6.1999, to demonstrate the process of counterfeiting currency notes on computer. Suresh Prasad, in turn demonstrated the front and back part of counterfeit note of Rs. 500/-denomination in two separate files. Thereafter, the witness prepared his report Ex.R35. However, Suresh Kumar could not be able to switch on or use the printer due to some technical fault in it.34. That apart, it is also worthy to take note of following serious lapses in the prosecution case. 1. The prosecution failed to examine in evidence said Suresh Kumar, Computer Expert, 2. PW 15 Ast Ali, Head Constable who was a witness to the recovery memo has not deposed a single word in respect of recovery of computer from the possession of appellant Pooran Mai, 3. PW 21 Aladdin Khan, Malkhana Incharge has admitted that Mahendra Singh, Investigating Officer deposited the computer in the malkhana in unsealed condition and therefore the computer and accessories remained in unsealed condition from the time of recovery till it was presented before PW 31 Om Prakash on 30.6.1999. 4. No new fact was discovered by the information of appellant Pooran Mai as the investigating Agency has the prior information of Mahendra Singh accused. 35. Thus, for the above serious lapses in the prosecution case, it would not be safe to conclude that the computer and accessories were recovered at the information of appellant Pooran Mai. Even if this fact is taken to be true, still the recovery of computer from the possession of Pooranmal is highly suspicious. 35. Thus, for the above serious lapses in the prosecution case, it would not be safe to conclude that the computer and accessories were recovered at the information of appellant Pooran Mai. Even if this fact is taken to be true, still the recovery of computer from the possession of Pooranmal is highly suspicious. In these circumstances, mere possession of computer and accessories is not sufficient to hold that appellant Pooran Mai used the computer and accessories to counterfeit currency notes.36. Having scrutinised the prosecution evidence, I do not find an iota of evidence as against appellant Dharmesh. The learned trial court has simply referred to a wrong fact to convict appellant Dharmesh that at his instance Pooran Mai was arrested. It may be noted that appellant Pooran Mai was arrested on 5.6.99 at 12.00 noon vide arrest memo Ex.P.33, whereas Dharmesh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.R33 on 5.6.1999 at 12.15 PM.37. Likewise, there is no iota of evidence against appellant Nemichand. PW 10 Amit Bhargava has denied the fact of purchase of computer by accused Nemi Chand through receipt Ex.P 17.38. I also do not find any evidence to conclude that appellants Dharmesh, Pooran Mai and Nemi Chand entered into conspiracy and in furtherance of conspiracy they counterfeited the currency notes on computer. Therefore, in the absence of there being any evidence against these appellants, their conviction under Section 489A read with Section 120B IPC cannot be sustained.39. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. The conviction of Appellants Pooran Mai, Dharmesh and Nemi Chand under Section 489A read with Section 120B IPS and the sentences awarded thereunder are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. The conviction of appellants Manoj and Suresh under Section 489B read with Section 120B IPC and the sentences awarded thereunder are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. However, the conviction of appellants Manoj and Suresh under Section 489C IPC is maintained. However, appellants Manoj and Suresh have already undergone major part of the sentence and therefore, their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them and they be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.Appeals partly allowed. *******