JUDGMENT : The judgment dated 22.04.2015, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur, Tripura in ST100(ST/A) of 2013, is in question in the present appeal. The State of Tripura has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the acquittal of the respondents, who were charged under Section 489(B)/489(C) of the Indian Penal Code, allegedly for commission of offence of disbursing false currency notes of Rs.500/- to the innocent MGNREGA labourers/workers and using the same as genuine. 2. On 08.08.2012, one Sri Asish Datta, Programme Officer (BDO), Karbook R.D. Block of Gomati District had lodged a complaint (Exbt.5) to the Natun Bazar Police Station stating, inter alia, that he received one complaint from the MGNREGA workers of Rambhadra ADC Village under Karbook R.D. Block, on 08.08.2012, at around 14.00 hours, in connection with payment of fake notes towards MGNREGA workers by business correspondence, namely New Elegant Computer, sponsored by the Tripura State Co-operative Bank(TSCB) Ltd., Karbook Branch. It was further stated in the said complaint that the payment was made on 30.07.2012 and 31.07.2012, respectively in the Rambhadra ADC Village office by the concerned business correspondence, and it was ascertained on 05.08.2012 (Sunday) that some fake notes were given to the MGNREGA workers. Altogether 24 (twenty four) numbers of MGNREGA workers had deposited Rs.26,000/-(rupees twenty six thousand) only to the concerned village for replacement of fake notes, which are still lying with the custody of the Village Committee. He lodged this complaint on the basis of a communication (Exbt.4/1) made jointly by Smt. Usharani Tripura and Sri Dhirendra Reang, Chairperson and Vice-Chairman, respectively of Rambhadra ADC Village under Karbook R.D. Block. The complainant, i.e. the Programme Officer (BDO)[hereinafter referred to as, the complainant)] had appended the communication, which was made by the aforesaid Chairperson and Vice-Chairman of the said ADC village. 3. Based on this complaint, the Officer-In-Charge, Natun Bazar Police Station, had registered an FIR on 08.08.2012 under Sections 489(B)/489(C) of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as IPC] and endorsed the case to one Sub-Inspector of Police, namely Sri Biraj Debbarma, for the purpose of investigation. 4. In course of investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand-sketch map with separate index, examined available witnesses and also recorded their statements under Section 161 of CrPC. 4. In course of investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand-sketch map with separate index, examined available witnesses and also recorded their statements under Section 161 of CrPC. He also seized 52(fifty two) numbers of suspected fake Indian currency notes amounting to Rs.26,000/- (rupees twenty six thousand), arrested both the FIR named accused persons[hereinafter referred to as the respondents]. While the investigation of the case was on process, the case was taken over by the CID, Tripura. On 04.09.2012, Sub-Inspector of Police, Sri Ranabir Bhattacharjee of CID, being endorsed with the process of investigation, recorded the statements of some more witnesses, seized savings account opening form of respondent No.1, Amit Debnath along with six numbers of different scrolls furnishing information to the Bank Manager/Post Master for crediting cash wages into the respective bank accounts. The said officer also seized six numbers of cheques of Tripura State Co-operative Bank issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Rambhadra ADC Village and also seized two numbers of withdrawal forms signed by the respondent No.1, Amit Debnath. During investigation, he also sent suspected forged Indian currency notes to the Director, Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) and consequently, received the expert opinion. Finally, the investigating officer, being prima facie satisfied with the materials brought on record in course of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the respondents, namely Sri Amit Debnath and Sri Niranjan Debbarma. 5. On receipt of the police report, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amarpur, South Tripura took cognizance of the offence under Section 489(B) of IPC. After being committed the case record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on the basis of the materials on record, had framed charge against the respondents under Sections 489(B)/489(C) of IPC. 6. In course of trial, as many as 24(twenty four) numbers of witnesses were examined by the prosecution and also produced various documents, which were exhibited on proof. 7. After completion of recording of evidence, the respondents were examined under Section 313 of CrPC in which they pleaded their innocence, but declined to adduce any evidence in their defence. 8. After hearing the arguments, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur had delivered his judgment acquitting the respondents from the charge levelled against them as afore-stated and they were set at liberty. 9. 8. After hearing the arguments, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur had delivered his judgment acquitting the respondents from the charge levelled against them as afore-stated and they were set at liberty. 9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, dated 22.04.2015 the State of Tripura has preferred the instant appeal before this Court. 10. Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the appellant-State of Tripura as well as Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, while deciding the case had considered two points for determination, which reads as under: “(I) Whether on 30-07-2012 and 31.-07-2012 the accused persons trafficked and used forged/counterfeit Indian currency notes of Rs.26,000/- by disbursing them amongst the beneficiaries of MGNREGA of Ram Bhadra A.D.C. Village knowing the same to be forged or counterfeit? (II) Whether the accused persons possessed counterfeit Indian currency notes amounting to Rs.26,000/- denomination of Rs.500/- each knowing the same to be forged or counterfeited one and intended to use the same notes as genuine?” 12. The learned trial Judge had taken up both the above two points together for decision as those were inter-linked to each other. At this juncture, I deem it fit to reproduce Section 489(B) and Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal code, for convenience, here-in-below: “489B. 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 a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.] 489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.—Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe 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 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 13. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, in my opinion, to attract Section 489(B) of IPC, the following ingredients are to be fulfilled: (a) the notes in question either currency notes or bank notes; (b) such bank notes or currency notes were forged or counterfeited; (c) accused had transaction or otherwise trafficked in or used as genuine any forged or counterfeited currency notes or bank notes; (d) accused had knowledge or reason to believe that those notes were forged or counterfeited. To attract Section 489(C) of IPC, the necessary ingredients are: (a) the notes in question either currency notes or bank notes; (b) such notes were forged or counterfeited; (c) accused was in possession of such notes; (d) accused knew or had reason to believe that such notes were forged or counterfeited; and (e) he intended to use the same as genuine. 14. In my considered view, the learned trial Judge has correctly interpreted that as per the ingredients of Section 489(B) and Section 489(C) of IPC, vital things which are to be considered in this case are: (a) whether notes in question are currency notes or bank notes or not; (b) whether those notes are forged or counterfeited; (c) whether accused persons were in possession of such notes; (d) whether accused persons possessed such notes having knowledge that those are forged or counterfeited; (e) whether accused persons used or intended to use those notes as genuine having knowledge that those notes are forged or counterfeited. 15. I have no reason to take a different view as was found by the learned trial Judge that all the beneficiaries, who were examined in the course of trial as PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6, PW7, PW8 and PWs10 to 16, deposed that on the relevant dates both the accused persons disbursed wages of MGNREGA to the beneficiaries of Rambhadra ADC Village and all of them identified the respondents before the trial Court. 16. PW21, Sri Subrata Bhowmik is the proprietor of New Elegant Computer, who had admitted during his examination that on 30.07.2012 and 31.07.2012, the respondents being his employees, disbursed wages to the MGNREGA workers/beneficiaries of Rambhadra ADC Village. 16. PW21, Sri Subrata Bhowmik is the proprietor of New Elegant Computer, who had admitted during his examination that on 30.07.2012 and 31.07.2012, the respondents being his employees, disbursed wages to the MGNREGA workers/beneficiaries of Rambhadra ADC Village. The two withdrawal forms which were submitted and signed by the respondents on 30.07.2012 amounting to Rs.2,01,180/- and on 31.07.2012 amounting to Rs.4,83,348/-, were produced and exhibited before the Court on proof by PW24, i.e. the second investigation officer of the case, namely Sri Ranabir Bhattacharjee, SI of CID, which were seized as per seizure list dated 27.11.2012(Exbt.11). From such withdrawal forms, there cannot be any dispute that the respondents had withdrawn the afore-stated amount from the bank. 17. PW1, Sri Samaresh Debbarma, who is an employee of TSCB, Karbook Branch also deposed the said fact of withdrawal of the afore-stated amount by the respondents. PW9, Sri Namanjoy Reang also corroborated the said fact as he had deposed before the Court that he gave his bike to Niranjan Debbarma on 31.07.2012 for distribution of wages to the MGNREGA beneficiaries. PW5, Sri Ashaful Alam also supported the prosecution version that the respondents had disbursed the wages to the MGNREGA workers. 18. Now, it is to be enquired into, whether the notes in question are currency notes or bank notes or not. Indisputably, the seized notes are Indian currency notes denomination of Rs.500/- each as was revealed from the seizure list and from the evidence of other witnesses. 19. PW1, Sri Samaresh Debbarma in his cross-examination has stated that none of the beneficiaries lodged any complaint prior to 08.08.2012 and he himself had no knowledge about the fake currency notes. He has further stated that he did not note down the numbers of those currency notes in his office. PW1, being a bank official has clearly stated that prior to lodging of the case, there was no intimation that the denominations which were disbursed from the bank, were found to be fake. The said witness further stated that no person lodged any complaint to any of the bank officials that fake currency notes were given to them by the respondents. He also failed to say that the denominations of the currency notes given to the respondent No.1, Amit Debnath on 30.07.2012 and 31.07.2012. The said witness further stated that no person lodged any complaint to any of the bank officials that fake currency notes were given to them by the respondents. He also failed to say that the denominations of the currency notes given to the respondent No.1, Amit Debnath on 30.07.2012 and 31.07.2012. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he came to learn about the fake currency notes from the BDO and one police officer, when those were shown to him. He suggested them to send those currency notes for further examination to the experts. 20. It is revealed from the deposition of PW5, one of the beneficiaries, that one Rega Master was present on 30.07.2012 and 31.07.2012 when the wages were being disbursed and that Rega Master maintained the relevant books and papers. It is also surfaced from his evidence that the beneficiaries first met with the village Vice-Chairman, namely Sri Dhirendra Reang and lodged their complaint. Panchayat Secretary, namely Sri Samir Debnath in presence of the Vice-Chairman collected those fake currency notes from the beneficiaries and lodged the complaint to the BDO, Karbook. 21. PW13, Sri Rentu Kumar Reang in his deposition has stated that he received Rs.2,970/- as his wages and out of the said amount he only used a hundred rupee currency note and the rest amount was with him. After three/four days, Chairman, Sri Dhirendra Reang visited his house and informed him that the currency notes given to him were fake and he took four numbers of five hundred rupee currency note from him(PW13) stating that those were fake currency notes. 22. PW-17, Sri Dhirendra Reang, the Vice-Chairman of Rambhadra ADC Village in his cross-examination has stated that the fake currency notes were seized by the police from Samir Debnath, PW-18. 23. Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that none of the denominations of Indian currency notes was seized from the possession of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to persuade this Court that though some of the currency notes were seized from Sri Samir Debnath, PW18, but, no case was registered against him. 24. PW25, Sri Subhashish Chowdhury, who was discharging his duties in the Document Division of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Narsingarh, in his cross-examination has stated that he did not examine the 52 numbers of five hundred currency note. 24. PW25, Sri Subhashish Chowdhury, who was discharging his duties in the Document Division of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Narsingarh, in his cross-examination has stated that he did not examine the 52 numbers of five hundred currency note. He has further stated that he cannot say who typed the contents of the report. The said witness has categorically stated that there was no specific marking in the alamats produced before the Court. 25. The learned trial Judge has observed that on perusal of Exhibit-3, it is found that total 52 numbers of Indian currency note denomination of Rs.500/- were seized from different beneficiaries in presence of the witnesses whose signatures were also proved before the learned trial Court as Exbt.3/1, Exbt.3/2 and Exbt.3/3 series. Thus, there is no doubt that the investigation officer sent all the seized currency notes to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Narsingarh for determining whether those currency notes are forged or not. But it is not understood why all the 52 numbers of five hundred rupee currency note were not examined by the officials of SFSL including PW25. However, the report prepared by Amal Chandra Kalita was identified by PW25 which was marked as Exbt.13. 26. PW24, the Sub-Inspector of CID, Sri Ranabir Bhattacharjee has stated that he seized some documents in course of investigation, those included 13 numbers of scrolls of the Karbook R.D. Block(Exhibit-10 series), and he sent 52 numbers of 500 rupee Indian currency note to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for scientific investigation, one original withdrawal form dated 30.07.2012 for an amount of Rs.2,01,180/- from the Tripura State Co-operative Bank, Karbook Branch along with another original withdrawal form having signature of the respondent No.1, Amit Debnath dated 31.07.2012 for an amount of Rs.4,83,348/-(Exhibit-11) and two withdrawal forms(Exbt.12 series). 27. For argument sake, if it is presumed that those 52 numbers Indian currency note were fake being forged or counterfeited, then, the prosecution is to prove whether the accused persons were in possession of such fake currency notes; whether accused persons possessed such notes having knowledge that those are forged or counterfeited and whether the accused persons having knowledge that those notes are forged or counterfeited. 28. I reiterate that there is no evidence on record that any of the denominations of Indian currency notes was seized from the possession of the respondents. 28. I reiterate that there is no evidence on record that any of the denominations of Indian currency notes was seized from the possession of the respondents. In course of investigation, the investigating agency also has miserably failed to bring any evidence about the source of those fake notes and wherefrom the respondents had received those notes, though, the respondents were interrogated by the police. The prosecution also has failed to produce any evidence that the respondents were having any knowledge that those notes were forged or counterfeited and they intended to use those notes as genuine having knowledge that those notes were forged or counterfeited. In my considered view, to constitute the offence under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC, it must be established beyond any shadow of doubt that at the time of one’s possession of such currency, that he knew the notes to be forged or had the reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that at the time when the accused was passing the note he knew that it was a forged one. The mere possession of it by him does not shift the burden to the accused to prove his innocent possession of the forged note. 29. The wages to the MGNREGA beneficiaries were disbursed on 30.07.2012 and 31.07.2012. Reasonably, the poor beneficiaries had to use those notes after receipt of their wages. Within the next 7 days of their receipt of wages, there was no complaint from any of the beneficiaries that any of the notes was found fake. Suddenly, on 18.08.2012, there was a complaint of fake notes of five hundred rupee denominations. The beneficiaries handed over those notes to Sri Dhirendra Reang(PW17), the Vice-Chairman of Rambhadra ADC Village and Sri Samir Debnath, the Panchayat Secretary(PW18) on different dates. Those persons only brought it to the notice of the complainant, i.e. the BDO, Karbook R.D. Block. So, in the chain of circumstances, it is surfaced that the seized currency notes were moved through different hands. (emphasis supplied) 30. It is also true that being a common man, it becomes impossible for him to identify whether a currency is fake or not. So, in the chain of circumstances, it is surfaced that the seized currency notes were moved through different hands. (emphasis supplied) 30. It is also true that being a common man, it becomes impossible for him to identify whether a currency is fake or not. Another most important aspect necessary to be considered is that it is on the record that just after the withdrawal of the amount, as referred to above, to make payment to the MGNREGA beneficiaries those were disbursed among them against their wages and also in the presence of a Rega Master. The prosecution has failed to show any cogent evidence that the respondents, being the employees of New Elegant Computer had caused any sorts of delay to disburse the said amount. 31. I may profitably refer to a decision in Umashanker vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 642 , where the Apex Court has held thus : [SCC pp.643-644, para 8] “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 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 currency note alleged to have been given to PW 4 was fake, "presumed" such a mens rea. ……………………………………………”. 32. In the case at hand, the prosecution fails to establish that the respondents had any requisite mens rea. In order to bring in home guilt under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code, it is to be proved that the accused intended to use the forged or counterfeit currency note as genuine or it might be used as genuine. 32. In the case at hand, the prosecution fails to establish that the respondents had any requisite mens rea. In order to bring in home guilt under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code, it is to be proved that the accused intended to use the forged or counterfeit currency note as genuine or it might be used as genuine. It is for the prosecution to prove the circumstances which would irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the accused had the intention to introduce surreptitiously the note on the public. The word “and” occurring in Section 489(C) of IPC between the words “counterfeit” and “intended” is conjunctive. The effect is that a person would not become punishable even when the requirements in the opening part of the provision are established unless it is provided that he intended to use or forged counterfeit currency note or bank note as genuine or he had the intention otherwise that it might be used if not by himself then by someone else as genuine. Intention to use the forged or counterfeit notes as genuine must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the respondents were not even asked in their examination under Section 313 of CrPC whether they knew the notes to be counterfeit. (emphasis supplied) 33. In furtherance thereof, none of the shop-keepers had adduced any evidence to establish the prosecution case that any of the beneficiaries had approached them with fake currency or notes when they apprised the said witnesses about the fake notes. Significantly, PW1, the bank official, when he was called on by the complainant (BDO, Karbook R.D. Block), he was also not sure whether those currency notes were genuine or fake and suggested the BDO and the police official to send those currency notes for examination to the experts. PW1 in his cross-examination has stated that he was unable to say, the seized denominations or the currency notes were given to the respondent No.1, Amit Debnath on 30.07.2012 and 31.07.2012. The investigating officer also did not investigate about what denominations or the currency notes were handed over to the said respondents and whether the currency notes, which the beneficiaries had produced to the BDO were the same notes as were withdrawn by the respondent No.1 from the bank. 34. The investigating officer also did not investigate about what denominations or the currency notes were handed over to the said respondents and whether the currency notes, which the beneficiaries had produced to the BDO were the same notes as were withdrawn by the respondent No.1 from the bank. 34. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, it is very difficult to come to a conclusion that the respondents had committed offence under Sections 489(B)/489(C) of IPC and, accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal as returned by the learned trial Judge, setting the respondents at liberty. 35. In the result, the present criminal appeal filed by the State fails, and thus, dismissed.