Judgment Narendra Kumar Jain, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2.These two appeals, one on behalf of accused Mahesh Panchal and Smt. Chandrika Panchal and another on behalf of accused Virendra Gupta, are directed against the common Judgment dated 06/010.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Fake Currency Notes Cases, Jaipur City in Sessions Case No. 7/2000. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3.Trial Court has convicted and sentenced accused appellants as under: Mahesh Panchal Under Section 489-B r/w 120-B, IPC - 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months S.I. Under Section 489-C r/w 120-B, IPC - 5 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Under Section 489-D r/w 120-B, IPC - 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months SI under each count. Chandrika Panchal Under Section 489-B read with Section 120-B, IPC - 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Under Section 489-C read with Section 120-B, IPC - 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-Under Section 489-D read with Section 120-B, IPC - 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-. in default of payment of fine, under each offence to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. Virendra Gupta Under Section 489-B r/w Section 120-B, IPC -3 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 489-C read with Section 120-B, IPC - 3 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 4.In default of payment of fine of Rs. 500/-under each offence, to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. 5. All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 6.PW 3 Rakesh Arora, submitted a written report (Exhibit P-1) at Police Station Jalupura, Jaipur alleging that he had his showroom namely Abhinandan Ek Aur in Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur where he was doing business of bed-sheet, bed-cover, cushion cover etc. On 12.09.1999, one man and two women came to his showroom and after seeing bed-sheets etc. told that they will come on the next day. They came again on 13.09.1999 but on that day also, they told that they will come on next day. Thereafter, on 14.09.1999 they came to his showroom and purchased bed-sheets, bed-covers etc. worth Rs. On 12.09.1999, one man and two women came to his showroom and after seeing bed-sheets etc. told that they will come on the next day. They came again on 13.09.1999 but on that day also, they told that they will come on next day. Thereafter, on 14.09.1999 they came to his showroom and purchased bed-sheets, bed-covers etc. worth Rs. 54,900/-and paid five packets containing 100 notes of Rs.100/-in each packet and 49 notes of Rs. 100/-each. He further alleged that he suspected genuineness of the currency notes. He also gave vehicle No. MH 07 1770 Maruti Zen. Age of the persons was mentioned as 47, 40 and 15 years respectively. SHO registered FIR No. 191/99 (Exhibit-2) under Section 420/120-B, 489-A, 489-B and 489-C, IPC. Accused persons were arrested on 14.09.1999 itself vide arrest memos Exhibit P-10, Exhibit P-12, and Exhibit P-13 respectively. Forged currency notes were seized vide Exhibit P-3. Clothes which were purchased were also seized. The forged currency notes were sent for examination and as per report dated 16.03.2001 given by the Assistant Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur, Indian currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-marked as O-1 to O-602 were found to be not genuine. 7.After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against all the three accused persons and the learned trial Court framed charge against all the three appellants for offences under Section 489-B r/w 120-B, 489-C r/w 120-B and 489-D r/w 120-B, IPC. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined ten witnesses and produced documentary evidence Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-21. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, CrPC, wherein they contended that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was produced in defence. After hearing all the parties, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons, as mentioned above. Being aggrieved of the same, present appeals have been preferred before this Court. .8.Mr. S.L. Songara, learned Counsel for the accused-appellant Mahesh Panchal and Chandrika Panchal contended that the learned trial Court committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He contended that the accused persons were not named in the FIR and when they were arrested on the same day, it was the duty of the prosecution to put them for identification parade. He contended that the accused persons were not named in the FIR and when they were arrested on the same day, it was the duty of the prosecution to put them for identification parade. No identification parade was conducted in the present case. Therefore, it was doubtful as to whether the accused persons were involved in the present case or not. He further contended that from the statement of PW 3 Rakesh Arora, complainant it is clear that the allegation has been made against only Mahesh Panchal about purchase of clothes and payment of bill through forged currency notes and no allegation has been made by him against Smt. Chandrika. He has also contended that there are serious material contradictions in between the statements of PW 3 Rakesh Arora, PW 8 Ram Phool, I.O. and PW 9 Madan Lal, ASI in respect of total amount of the bill. At one place, it has come that the bill was not prepared and at another place it has been mentioned that name was not mentioned in the bill. Initially, the complainant contended that the total bill was for Rs. 45,000/-but subsequently, he contended that it was for Rs. 54,400/-or Rs. 54,900/-Learned Counsel also addressed the Court on the conduct of complainant and lastly contended that in absence of identification parade and .contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. 9.Mr. S.S. Hora, learned Counsel for accused appellant Virendra Gupta contended that the accused was not involved at all in any conspiracy with other two accused persons namely Mahesh Panchal and Smt. Chandrika Panchal. Accused Virendra Gupta was simply a driver of the car of accused Mahesh and was not knowing about possession or use of forged currency notes by the co-accused persons. He contended that the best evidence against him could be of PW 3 Rakesh Arora, the complainant and as per his statement, not a single allegation has been made against him. Learned trial Court has not assigned any cogent reason for his conviction except that accused Mahesh and he were living at the same place Vinay Khand. He contended that the best evidence against him could be of PW 3 Rakesh Arora, the complainant and as per his statement, not a single allegation has been made against him. Learned trial Court has not assigned any cogent reason for his conviction except that accused Mahesh and he were living at the same place Vinay Khand. He further contended that the said fact was taken by the trial Court from the statement of PW 8 but the statement of accused Virendra Gupta recorded under Section 313, CrPC will show that this question was not put to him at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313, CrPC so specific explanation about it did not come on record. Therefore, such evidence could not be used against him. He further contended that even if such evidence is believed then also it could not be treated as sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 10.Learned Public Prosecutor initially contended that the conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the trial Court is just and legal but during the course of arguments, he admitted that there is no specific evidence including statement of PW 3 Rakesh Arora, against accused Smt. Chandrika and Virendra Gupta so as to connect them with the crime. He also referred to the statement of PW 3 informant but could not point out a single line of his statement against these two accused persons namely Chandrika and Virendra Gupta. 11.I have considered the rival contentions and examined impugned Judgment as well as record of the trial Court. Exhibit P-1 is the written report given by PW 3 Rakesh Arora wherein it was reported that three persons came on 12.09.1999 and 13.09.1999 and assured him to come on the next day after selecting clothes items from the showroom and they again came on 14.09.1999 and purchased the selected items from his showroom worth Rs. 54.900/-However, he did not mention the name of any of the accused persons in the FIR. The informant Rakesh Arora was examined during trial as PW 3 and a bare perusal of his statement will show that he had made the entire allegation against one accused namely Mahesh Panchal and has not stated a single word against other two accused namely Smt. Chandrika and Virendra Gupta. The informant Rakesh Arora was examined during trial as PW 3 and a bare perusal of his statement will show that he had made the entire allegation against one accused namely Mahesh Panchal and has not stated a single word against other two accused namely Smt. Chandrika and Virendra Gupta. 12.So far as accused Mahesh Panchal is concerned, I find that he gave information under Section 27, Evidence Act during investigation on 18.09.1999 about one forged currency note of Rs. 100/-, NSC punching machine and printing kit lying in his house at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (UP) and in pursuance of the said information, a forged currency note of Rs. 100/-, ten NSCs of six years, one punching machine, self inking printing kit were recovered vide Exhibit P-17 recovery memo and the same was proved during trial of the case by the prosecution witnesses. Recovery of self inking printing kit and punching machine etc. are proved beyond doubt. He was in knowledge of forged currency notes and he used the forged currency notes at Jaipur in the showroom of PW 3 Rakesh Arora, he was found in possession of forged currency notes and he was also found in possession of instrument or material for the purpose of being used for forging or counterfeiting currency note. Learned trial Court has also considered oral and documentary evidence in detail and recorded the finding that the offences under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 489-D read with Section 120-B, IPC are made out. PW 3 Rakesh Arora also identified the accused Mahesh in Court. After considering arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and examining the finding of the trial Court as well as record of the case, I am satisfied that offences under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 489-D, IPC are made out against accused Mahesh Panchal. .13.So far as co-accused persons namely Smt. Chandrika and Virendra Gupta are concerned. I find that there is no allegation against them in Exhibit P-1 written report and statement of the complainant Rakesh Arora (PW 3). From the statement of prosecution witnesses, knowledge of accused Smt. Chandrika about the above offences is not borne out. No recovery has been made from her. I find that there is no allegation against them in Exhibit P-1 written report and statement of the complainant Rakesh Arora (PW 3). From the statement of prosecution witnesses, knowledge of accused Smt. Chandrika about the above offences is not borne out. No recovery has been made from her. So far as other accused Virendra Gupta is concerned, there is no iota of .evidence against him and the trial Court wrongly convicted and sentenced him only on the basis that he was living in the same area where Mahesh Panchal was living. 14.Honble the Apex Court in Umashankar vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2001 (9) SCC 642 , considered the object of Section 489-A to 489-E, IPC and also words "knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeited" and held that mens rea is essential to constitute the above offences. Mens rea on the part of the accused must be proved by the prosecution. Supreme Court in the above case observed as under: "7. Sections 489-A to 489-E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. The object of the legislature in enacting these provisions is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency notes and banknotes. The currency notes are, in spite of growing accustomedness to the credit card system, still the backbone of the commercial transactions by the multitudes in our country. But these provisions are not meant to punish unwary possessors or users. 8. Aperusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C is "knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or banknotes 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 banknotes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489-B ,IPC. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489-C in the absence of the mens rea, noted above. No material is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant had the requisite mens 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 mens 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 the currency note alleged to have been given to PW 4 was fake "presumed" such a mens rea. On the date of the incident the appellant was said to be an eighteen-year-old student. 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 the Criminal Procedure Code. On these facts, we have no option but to hold that the charges framed under Sections 489-B and 489-C are not proved. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Section 489-B and 489-C and acquit him of the said charges (see: M. Mammutti vs. State of Karnataka)." 15.In view of the above discussion of facts and position of law, I find that accused Smt. Chandrika and Virendra Gupta have wrongly been convicted by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned above, therefore, I set aside their conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 16.However, so far as accused Mahesh Panchal is concerned, I find that prosecution has been able to prove the necessary ingredients of the above referred three offences and there is specific evidence against him and he was rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. Although accused Mahesh Panchal was charged with offences under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 489-D read with Section 120-B, IPC and since two accused persons namely Smt. Chandrika and V.K. Gupta have been acquitted, but I find that accused Mahesh Panchal was fully aware about the charge and allegation against him for offence under Sections 489-B, 489 -C and 489-D, IPC and therefore, no prejudice has been caused to him if he has been convicted now under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 489-D, IPC. Apex Court in Durgo Bai and Another vs. State of Punjab, 2004 (7) SCC 144 in Para 13 of the Judgment has observed as under: "By reason of citation of wrong section in the charge, we do not think that the appellants were handicapped from meeting the case against them or otherwise suffered any prejudice. The trial and conviction cannot, therefore, be set aside on this score." 17.Accused Mahesh Panchal is in jail since 14.09.1999 as he was not granted bail during investigation/trial and his sentence was not suspended during the pendency of this appeal as well, therefore, he has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for about 6 years 5 months. Trial Court awarded 5 years imprisonment under Section 489-C, IPC, and 7 years RI in each offence, under Sections 489-B and 489-D. I reduce the sentence of appellant Mahesh Panchal under Sections 489-B and D from 7 years RI to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him in each offence. The trial Court had already passed an order to run sentence of imprisonment concurrently. 18.Consequently, appeal of Mahesh Panchal is partly allowed. His conviction under Sections 489 -B, C and D, IPC is maintained but sentence of imprisonment for offence under Sections 489 -B and D, IPC is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him with fine of Rs. 500/-in each offence, in default, to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment separately. He has already completed sentence of five years imprisonment awarded under Section 489-C, IPC. Four weeks time is allowed to deposit the amount of fine. He is in custody, therefore, he may be released forthwith if his custody is not required in any other case. 19.As regards appeals filed by co-accused Smt. Chandrika and Virendra Gupta are concerned. I allow their appeals and set aside their conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Both the accused persons (Smt. Chandrika and V.K. Gupta) are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.