Judgment and Order : Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned PP appearing for the State. 2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.11.2014 delivered in S.T. 19(WT/K) of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura. 3. Having received a secret information, according to the informant, namely Sri Brajadulal Dutta he intercepted one vehicle (Jeep) which was proceeding towards Chebri. The appellant was detained from the said vehicle and on search of his person, the informant (PW-7) found 80 counterfeited currency notes of denomination of 500 from the appellant. According to the prosecution, due seizure list in presence of the witnesses was prepared while seizing those counterfeit currencies. After such seizure, PW-7 filed the written complain to the Officer-in-Charge, Khowai Police Station and based on which, the Khowai Police Station Case No. 89 of 2009 under Section 489(B)/489(C) of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completing the investigation, the police filed the final report under Section 489(B)/489(C) of the IPC. On taking cognizance, the charge was framed against the appellant only under Section 489(C) of the IPC. 4. Since the appellant had denied the charge on raising the plea of innocence, the prosecution adduced as many as 10(ten) witnesses including the police officer who seized the counterfeit currencies, the forensic expert and the purported seizure witnesses. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also introduced some documentary evidence including the report of state Forensic Science Laboratory (Exbt.5) and the seizure list of the counterfeit currencies (Exbt.1) etc. The petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. after the prosecution evidence was closed. The appellant had projected the plea of innocence. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence returned the judgment of conviction which has been challenged during the said examination in this appeal. 5. Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the seizure could not be proved to have carried out lawfully by the prosecution. The appellant had projected the plea of innocence. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence returned the judgment of conviction which has been challenged during the said examination in this appeal. 5. Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the seizure could not be proved to have carried out lawfully by the prosecution. Further, it has been raised that Section 489(C) of the IPC prescribes that the person from whose possession counterfeit currencies are recovered or seized, must have the knowledge or there should be reasons to believe that he did know the currencies to be forged or counterfeited and that he had intention to use those as genuine or that he might have used those as genuine. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has stoutly submitted that presence of mens ria has not been at all proved by the prosecution. The trial court has faulted. What has been provided in the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2014 is a violence to the settled principles of appreciating the evidence. In Para-12, the trial court has observed as under : “It is abundantly clear that the accused Chandan Rudra Paul has in his possession forged or counterfeit currency notes knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or to be counterfeit currency notes knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or to be counterfeit and the said fake currency notes were recovered from him. So he had certain intention to use the same as genuine otherwise he will not keep the such fake currency notes in his possession. There is also evidence in fact that the accused including other tribal youths on being asked to stop their vehicle, the two tribal youths absconded and the present accused Chandan Rudra Paul caught red handed with bulk of fake 80 numbers of 500 rupees denomination Indian currency notes which were recovered out of his possession.” There is no dispute about the seized notes being counterfeit currencies as the prosecution to support that part has examined Dr. Sudip Debnath (PW-9) who had chemically examined those currency notes and given his report stating that those were counterfeit Indian currencies. 6. Mr. Sudip Debnath (PW-9) who had chemically examined those currency notes and given his report stating that those were counterfeit Indian currencies. 6. Mr. Deb, learned counsel having relied a decision of the apex court in Umashanker versus State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 642 has submitted that the law as laid down by the apex court stands contrary to the analysis and observation as made by the trial court. In Umashanker apex court has observed that under Section 489-B and 489-C the clause “knowing or having reasons to believe the currency notes or banknotes are forged or counterfeit” is the clause for showing the mens rea that the accused had. Unless that mens rea is proved, the fundamental ingredient of Section 489-C of the IPC has to be deemed as not proved. The apex court has further observed as under : “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. 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.” [Emphasis added] 7. Mr. On these facts, we have no option but to hold that the charges framed under Sections 489-B and 489-C are not proved.” [Emphasis added] 7. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned PP appearing for the State while defending the judgment has submitted that even there is some serious incongruity about the time of seizure, but those may be over looked by this court as a huge amount of counterfeit currencies have been recovered from the accused person and the accused person has not given any explanation at all. 8. This court while examining the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C finds that there is no question put to the accused person about the counterfeit currencies, such as, whether the accused knew that the currencies were counterfeit or not. While scrutinizing the records, this court finds further that PW-7, Shri Brajadulal Dutta, the informant did not follow the procedure of Sections 100 and 165 of the Cr.P.C. while making search and seizure, even though it has been stated that where the seizing officer intercepted the vehicle, there were other people around but PW-7 did not observe the proper procedure for search and seizure. That apart, what has appeared before this court is that in the seizure list (Exbt.5), the time of seizure has been recorded by PW-7 as 15.05 hrs. of 21.11.2009 and the place of seizure has been shown at Uttar Chebri. The place and time of the seizure have been disowned by many witnesses. For example, PW-1, Shri Debendra Paul has in the cross examination stated that 80 nos. of 500 rupee Indian currency notes were seized in the morning of 21.11.2009. The similar statement has been made by PW-2, i.e. Sri Arun Debnath in his examination-in-Chief that in the morning at about 8 am in the Chebri market, the police had shown him 80 Nos. of forged 500 Indian currency notes and at the request of the police officer he signed on the seizure list. 9. PW-3, Sri Ripan Debnath and PW-4, Sri Kisore Debnath had given the different dates but since they did not support the prosecution case they were declared hostile under Section 154 of the Indian evidence Act and the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine them. PW-5, Smt. Rinku Rudra Paul was 'tendered' by the prosecution. This practice still continues despite severe criticism from the apex court. 10. Mr. PW-5, Smt. Rinku Rudra Paul was 'tendered' by the prosecution. This practice still continues despite severe criticism from the apex court. 10. Mr. Deb, learned counsel in this regard has heavily relied on the testimony of PW-6, Sri Balendra Debbarma to show that virtually there was no investigation in the matter and there was no valid search and seizure. PW-6 is a police constable and he has stated that on 21.11.2009 when he was accompanying ASI Sunil Debbarma of Khowai Police Station, Sunil Debbarma having received the secret information reached near by a shop by riding a bike. Near the shop, PW-6 and the said ASI noticed three persons approaching ahead by riding a bike out of which one was Bengali guy and two others were tribal persons. When Sunil Debbarma asked them to stop, the tribal youth left the place but the appellant was apprehended. On causing search in his person Sunil Debbarma recovered 500 counterfeit Indian currency notes and seized those in presence of the witnesses. According to PW-6, there were 20/25 persons. Sunil Debbarma and PW-6 left the place within 15 minutes after the search and seizure. PW-7, Sri Brajadulal Dutta, ASI filed the written ejahar on 21.11.2009. His version is completely different from the version of PW-6. However, PW-6 has not been declared hostile by the prosecution though he has not at all supported the prosecution version. Thus, the prosecution could not resist the defence from taking advantage of that statement. PW-7 has stated that on the tip of information from a secret source, he had intercepted the appellant and other two tribal but the two tribals youth managed to escape from the place but he had apprehended the appellant. Thereafter he informed the Khowai police station and before that he recovered 80 fake currency notes from the appellant. 11. Sri Amal Chakraborty, PW-8 was in the CID at the relevant point of time and he took up the investigation on instruction from one Sanjoy Das and continued the investigation. He has categorically admitted in his examination in chief that in the CD there is no mention how previous Investigating Officer (IO) Sanjoy Das had received the currency notes. But there is a note in the CD on 20.12.2009 that he received 80 currency notes from the previous Investigating Officer. He sent those seized currency notes for forensic examination to the SFSL. PW-9, Dr. But there is a note in the CD on 20.12.2009 that he received 80 currency notes from the previous Investigating Officer. He sent those seized currency notes for forensic examination to the SFSL. PW-9, Dr. Sudip Debnath is the forensic expert and he has stated that the currency notes those were sent to him for chemical examination were examined by him and he found that those were counterfeited currencies. He was not cross-examined to that aspect of the matter. However, Sanjoy Das (PW-10) did not reveal anything except saying that the case was detected by Brajadulal Dutta, one ASI of Police, at Chebri area and on detection Brajadulal Dutta (PW-7) prepared seizure list of fake currency notes. The case was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by PW-7. He has omitted to state that how the fake currency notes came to his custody, which he handed over to Sri Amal Chakraborty (PW-8). Therefore, there is a serious lapse in establishing possession of the counterfeit currency notes. 12. That apart, Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that there is no evidence of mens rea in respect of possession of the counterfeit currency notes. Not a murmur even has been recorded in the trial that the appellant was suspected of being involved in the business of counterfeit currency or there is an antecedent of being involved in such that he had tried to circulate or produce any currency note as seized for value or nefarious to use those currency notes as genuine to any person. There was no investigation about the antecedent of the appellant and as such, in absence of mens ria or intention to circulate the counterfeit currency as genuine, it cannot be held that the prosecution has succeeded to establish the charge under Section 498-C of the IPC. 13. Having held thus, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit and accordingly he is acquitted from the charge under Section 489-C of the IPC on benefit of doubt. 14. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and the sureties are discharged from their liabilities. Send down the LCRs.