JUDGMENT : M. Nirmal Kumar, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is arising out of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in S.C. No. 51 of 2014, dated 14.10.2014, and acquit the appellant. 2. The Sessions Case in S.C. No. 51 of 2014 pertains to the case in Crime No. 233 of 2006, on the file of the Musiri Police Station, Trichy. As against the accused, the trial Court has framed charges as detailed below: Section of Law Punishment 489(B) 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment, with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment 489(C) 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment, with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment 3. Aggrieved over the same, this Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant. 4. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution are as follows: 4.1. In this case, P.W. 1 had been selling "Chair Mittai" in her shop at Manali Aythampatty, Musiri. On 25.04.2006, at about 06.30 a.m., the appellant came to her shop and asked P.W. 1 to give a parcel of 1 Kg "Chair Mittai" for purchasing the same, the appellant gave a sum of Rs. 500/- to P.W. 1. 4.2. On receipt of Rs. 500/-, P.W. 1 doubted about the currency and verified with the other shop vendors nearby to her shop and they found that the same was counterfeit currency. The other shop vendors verified and found that the appellant kept one number of Rs. 500/- counterfeit currency and eight numbers of Rs. 100/- counterfeit currencies with an intention to exchange the counterfeit currency as a genuine currency. 4.3. Immediately, PW 1 complained to the police (Ex. P.1), since it was a temple festival, the police were present there, P.W. 1 identified the appellant. The police apprehend the appellant along with counterfeit currencies, one number of Rs. 500/- counterfeit currency and eight numbers of Rs. 100/- counterfeit currencies seized from the accused, the accused arrested for commission of offence under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) IPC. The appellant was taken to the police station and a case was registered in Crime No. 233 of 2006 (Ex. P.6). Thereafter, the currencies were sent for forensic lab and the report (Ex. P.5) proved that the currencies are counterfeit. 100/- counterfeit currencies seized from the accused, the accused arrested for commission of offence under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) IPC. The appellant was taken to the police station and a case was registered in Crime No. 233 of 2006 (Ex. P.6). Thereafter, the currencies were sent for forensic lab and the report (Ex. P.5) proved that the currencies are counterfeit. On conclusion of investigation, final report was filed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) IPC. 4.4. On the side of the prosecution, 6 witnesses were examined and 9 exhibits were marked and 2 materials objects were produced. 5. The available evidences from the prosecution side are as follows: (i) PW 1, Chitra is the complainant and she was a seller of "Chair Mittai". She suspected the currencies, which was given by the appellant, and verified with her father (P.W. 2). (ii) P.W. 2, Subramanian, is the father of P. W. 1. He identified the counterfeit currencies and informed the other shop sellers nearby. (iii) P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 deposed about the incident and they gone to police station along with P.W. 1 for giving complaint. (iv) P.W. 5, is the Scientific Assistant Grade II, who verified the counterfeit currencies with original currencies and differentiated the counterfeit currencies and gave a report (Ex. P.4). (v) P.W. 6, Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, who received the complaint (Ex. P1) registered the first information report (Ex. P.6), conducted investigation arrested the accused, seized the counterfeit currencies, visited the scene of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses, forwarded the currencies for forensic examination, on receipt of report filed the charge sheet. 6. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the same. 7. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge, held that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, convicted the accused as stated above. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made the following submissions: 8.1. The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that even without admitting the entire prosecution case, the available evidence is not sufficient to attract the offence under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) and the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 8.2. The complaint was lodged on 25.04.2006 by P.W. 1. The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that even without admitting the entire prosecution case, the available evidence is not sufficient to attract the offence under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) and the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 8.2. The complaint was lodged on 25.04.2006 by P.W. 1. On the date of occurrence the appellant came to the shop of P.W. 1 for purchasing sweets. He would further submit that P.W. 1 in her statement states that she had not identified the appellant to the respondent. She had only stated that he/appellant was available in the crowd and she collected the other counterfeit currencies (eight 100 rupees notes) from the other shop vendors. But, none of the other shop vendors were examined as witness in this case. 8.3. He would also submit that in the observation mahazar there is nothing to show how the currencies were seized. Further, from whose possession the currencies were seized, how it has been seized has not been mentioned. In this case there is no confession leading to any recovery. 8.4. He also submitted that the other witnesses P.W. 2/father of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, the local witness for observation mahazar and the mahazar have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that on 25.04.2006. D.W. 1/appellant and D.W. 2, namely, Krishnasamy, who is the neighbour of the appellant were grazing their cattle, at that time the respondent police called them for enquiry at about 11.00 am and on the same day, they arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. 8.5. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3074 : (2001) 9 SCC 642 : LNIND 2001 SC 2237, the relevant paragraph is extracted here under: "8. A perusal 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 men 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. Without the aforementioned men 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 P.W. 2, P.W. 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 Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC an acquit him of the said charges." 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that (M.O. 1) 500 rupee currency was handed over by P.W. 1 and other shop vendors produced eight 100 rupee notes, which were received from the appellant for the purchases in their shops. P.W. 5/the forensic expert given a report (Ex. P.5) stating that the notes, which were recovered from the appellant are counterfeit notes. 10. Further in this case, the investigation has been properly conducted and charge sheet had been filed. The lower Court, on perusal of the materials and evidence had rightly convicted the appellant. 11. Heard Mr. N. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 12. 10. Further in this case, the investigation has been properly conducted and charge sheet had been filed. The lower Court, on perusal of the materials and evidence had rightly convicted the appellant. 11. Heard Mr. N. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 12. On perusal of the records, it is seen that in this case, the counterfeit currencies (M.O. 2) said to have been collected from the other shop vendors were not examined as witnesses. Further, there is no mahazar to prove the seizure. In Form 95 (Ex. P.5) no particulars are found. It is also seen that the Form 95 has been prepared on 25.04.2006 and the same was sent to the Court only on 26.11.2008. Ex. P.5 was returned to produce long with the property. Hence, it creates doubt about the actual seizure and forwarding of the seized property to the Court. 13. Thereafter, on several occasions, Form 95 have been returned for want of property and only on 11.06.2009, it was resubmitted. Further, in the cross examination of D.W. 1 by the prosecution, it is seen that on earlier occasion the appellant assaulted the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Hence, the contention of the appellant that he is falsely implicated by the respondent in this case. Coupled with the doubtful seizure, in ordinate delay in forwarding the seized notes to the Court, is well founded. 14. In view of the serious discrepancy of the evidence, it is found that the counterfeit currencies recovered from the other shop vendors were not examined as witnesses and P. W. 1 failed to identify the appellant. In view of the same benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. 15. This Court is of the view that the prosecution have failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in S.C. No. 51 of 2014, by the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 14.10.2014, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.