JUDGMENT : Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.10.2015 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in connection with case No. S.T.58(ST/B) of 2013 whereby and whereunder the convict-appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence under Section 489-B of IPC. Further, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence under Section 489-C of IPC. 2. The prosecution case was lodged on the basis of a complaint made by one Gouranga Batta, President of Brahma Puja Utsav Committee stating inter alia that on 20.12.2012 at about 1900 hours one Sadhan Ch. Shil Sharma appeared in the office of Brahma Puja Utsav Committee with one Rs. 500/- note with a view to exchange it from the cashier of the Utsav committee. Suspecting that the said Rs. 500/- note was fake and on being asked, the said Sadhan Ch. Shil Sharma disclosed that he received the same from Badsha Miah, the appellant herein. Badsha Miah was called on to the Utsav Committee and from him nine more fake notes of Rs.500/- denomination each were recovered. Upon receipt of that complaint, the investigation of the case was commenced and the fake currency notes were seized. The statements of the available witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. 3. Being committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, the case was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura who had framed the following charges against the appellant, which are as follows:- “Firstly, that on 20.12.2012 at about 1900 hours at SBC Nagar, Garage Tilla under Belonia Police Station, had in your possession a forged or counterfeit Indian currency 10(ten) Nos. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura who had framed the following charges against the appellant, which are as follows:- “Firstly, that on 20.12.2012 at about 1900 hours at SBC Nagar, Garage Tilla under Belonia Police Station, had in your possession a forged or counterfeit Indian currency 10(ten) Nos. To wit, (1) 6HV 378962 (2) 6HV 378959 (3) 6HV 378951 (4) 6HV 378973 (5) 6HV 378984 (6) 6HV 378961 (7) 6HV 374249 (8) 6HV 378974 (9) 6HV 378960 & (10) 6HV 378964 of five hundred Indian currency each, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions. Secondly, that on the same date, time and place you bought 3 Nos. chain at the value of Rs.50/- from the stationary shop of Raju Banik and gave him a currency note of Rs.500/- denomination vide No.6HV 378962 knowing or having reason to believe that the same to be forged or counterfeit and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 489(B) of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions” 4. In course of trial, as many as nine witnesses were examined and some documents were introduced including the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Narsinghar, Tripura. After conclusion of trial and hearing the argument of both the parties, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held the accused guilty for committing offences under Section 489-B & 489-C of IPC and sentenced him as aforestated. 5. I have heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned P.P., appearing for the State-respondent. 6. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the mens rea against the appellant. The investigating officer has never tried to find out the source of money wherefrom the appellant had received those fake currencies of five hundred rupees denominations. He further questioned the integrity of sealing and seizure of those currency notes. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has relied upon the two judgments passed by this High Court which are numbered as (1) CRL.A. No.22 of 2015 [titled as The State of Tripura Vs. He further questioned the integrity of sealing and seizure of those currency notes. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has relied upon the two judgments passed by this High Court which are numbered as (1) CRL.A. No.22 of 2015 [titled as The State of Tripura Vs. Shri Amit Debnath & Anr.,] & (2) CRL.A. No.07 of 2016 [titled as Shri Bishu Ranjan Das Vs. The State of Tripura]. Learned counsel has further relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in M. Mammutti Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1979) 4 SCC 723 and Umasankar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 642 . 7. On the other hand, learned P.P., has defended the judgment passed by the trial court. He submits that the prosecution has been able to establish the charges framed against the appellant. His pointed argument is that when the appellant was brought to the Office of the Utsav Committee and on being asked whether the appellant was possessing further fake notes of Rs.500/- denomination, on such query, the appellant had denied the possession of such notes. On search, nine numbers of denomination notes of Rs.500/- were found with him. According to learned P.P., from this circumstance, it is clear that the appellant was well aware of the fact that those denominations were fake. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis, and also have perused the evidence and materials brought on record to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant. 9. Before I delve into the issues relevant to decide the merits of the case and submission of the learned counsels for the parties, I would like to take note the principle of law that are required to be established against the charge framed under Section 489-B of IPC and Section 489-C of IPC. 10. In M. Mammutti Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1979) 4 SCC 723 , the Apex Court held that “to substantiate the charge under Section 489-B and Section 489-C of IPC it as to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt that it must be within the knowledge of the accused that the currency notes which he was possessing were fake and forged. More so, a specific question was required to be proved to him whether he had any knowledge that those notes were fake.” 11. More so, a specific question was required to be proved to him whether he had any knowledge that those notes were fake.” 11. In Umashankar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 642 , the Apex Court had observed thus:- “6. The conviction of the appellant by the trial court as confirmed by the High Court, is under Section 489-B and Section 489-C I.P.C., which read as under: "489-B. 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. 489-C. 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." 7. Sections 489-A to 489-E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes. The object of 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 bank-notes. The currency-notes are, inspite of growing accustomedness to the credit cards system, still the backbone of the commercial transactions by multitudes in our country. But these provisions are not meant to punish unwary possessors or users. 8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Section 489-B and 489-C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency-notes or bank notes are forged or counterfeit". But these provisions are not meant to punish unwary possessors or users. 8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Section 489-B and 489-C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency-notes or bank notes are forged or counterfeit". Without the afore-mentioned mens 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.P.C. 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 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 P.W. 7 that they were able to make out that currency note alleged to have been given to P.W. 4, was fake "presumed" such a mens rea. On the date of the incident the appellant was said to be 18 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 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 of I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charged [see : M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1979) SC 1705. 12. In a similar situation, this Court also in the cases of Bishu Ranjan Das(Supra) & Amit Debnath(Supra) had held that “in absence of definite proof that at the time of possession of currency notes, the accused had specific knowledge that those notes were fake and he had the intention to make illegal transactions with those notes, he cannot be convicted. In a similar situation, this Court also in the cases of Bishu Ranjan Das(Supra) & Amit Debnath(Supra) had held that “in absence of definite proof that at the time of possession of currency notes, the accused had specific knowledge that those notes were fake and he had the intention to make illegal transactions with those notes, he cannot be convicted. Furthermore, it was held that the seized notes must be sealed in a proper way and manner from which the integrity of seizure would be beyond doubt”. 13. In Bishu Ranjan Das(Supra), a coordinate bench of this Court (S. Talapartra, J) observed that:- “24. It is apparent from the evidence that the seized counterfeit currencies were not sealed within a packet in presence of witnesses and till this packet was broken by the State Forensic Science Laboratory [SFSL], nobody had access to those notes. The integrity of the seized sample in such cases is highly important as the prosecution has to prove the chain of custody to establish that the integrity of the sample was never compromised. But here, there is no evidence in relation to the chain of custody or the sampling in order to preserve the integrity of the seized materials. There is no evidence except the possession of the so called „counterfeit currencies?. Even there is no evidence of mens rea. In absence the evidence of mere possession, cannot prove that offence punishable under Section 489C of the IPC has been committed.” 14. In the case of Amit Debnath(Supra), this Court (Lodh, J) observed thus:- “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. 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) 15. Now, proceeding to the case in hand, I find that nine witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges in course of trial to find out the ingredients to establish the charge levelled against the appellant under Section 489-B & 489-C of IPC, let me make a short survey of the evidence and materials on record. 16. In the complaint (Exbt-2) it is revealed that apart from the counterfeit currency, which was produced by Sadhan Ch. Shil Sharma before the Puja Committee another nine counterfeit currencies of the face value of Rs.500/- each were recovered. 17. Learned P.P., has laid much emphasis on the deposition of P.W.-1, Shri Nataraj Chakraborty. P.W.-1 in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 20.12.2012 in the evening Gouranga Bhatta and Nepal Debnath, President and Assistant Cashier respectively of Bramha Puja Utsab Committee came to his house and showed him 10 numbers of Rs. 500/- Indian currency notes and also told him to verify whether those were fake or genuine. P.W.-1 is an Officer of Tripura State Co-operative Bank and from his long experience and after examination of said notes, he understood that those notes were not genuine. Thereafter they left his house with the said notes. P.W.-1 further deposed that on being asked Gouranga Bhatta and Nepal Debnath told him that they received a note of Rs.500/- denomination from one Sadhan Ch. Shil Sharma and other nine numbers of notes of Rs.500/- denomination from one Badsha Miah. 18. Thereafter they left his house with the said notes. P.W.-1 further deposed that on being asked Gouranga Bhatta and Nepal Debnath told him that they received a note of Rs.500/- denomination from one Sadhan Ch. Shil Sharma and other nine numbers of notes of Rs.500/- denomination from one Badsha Miah. 18. Next, learned P.P. has relied upon the deposition of P.W.-3, Shri Sujit Sen. He deposed that while he was sitting in the office of Bramha Puja Utsav Committee on 20.12.2012 at about 7/8 p.m. at that time Sadhan Ch. Shil Sharma had given a note of Rs.500/- denomination to their cashier, Sri Nepal Debnath. On examination they suspected about the genuinety of the said note. P.W.-3 further deposed that they asked Sadhan from where he had received the note and in reply he told that he got the note from Badsha Miah. Thereafter, Badsha Miah was called in the office room and on being asked that whether there were other such notes in his possession, he denied that he had such notes. He was searched and thereafter they found nine number notes of Rs.500/- denomination in his possession. At that time, one bank employee, namely, Nataraj Chakraborty was also present there and he examined those notes and gave opinion that those notes were not genuine. Thereafter, they informed the police. The police had seized those notes by preparing a seizure list. The witness has identified his signature. Seized currency notes were marked as Exbt. M.1. series. 19. P.Ws.-4, 5 & 6 had deposed in the similar tune. P.W.-4 deposed that Gouranga Bhatta was known to him. On 20.12.2012 at about 7/8 P.M. he was sitting in the Office of Bramha Puja Utsav Committee when said Sadhan Ch. Shil Sharma gave Rs. 500/- note to their cashier Nepal Debnath in the Office. He suspected the genuinity of the said note. Thereafter they asked Sadhan wherefrom he received the note. In reply he told that he got the note from Badsha Miah. Badsha Miah was called upon the Office room, and Badsha Miah was asked whether he had any more notes in his possession. He had denied. However, after being searched, they found nine numbers of Rs.500/- denomination in his possession. At that time, Nataraj Charaborty, one bank employee was also present in the office room and he gave his opinion that those currencies were not genuine. He had denied. However, after being searched, they found nine numbers of Rs.500/- denomination in his possession. At that time, Nataraj Charaborty, one bank employee was also present in the office room and he gave his opinion that those currencies were not genuine. The police was accordingly informed. 20. P.W.-8, investigating officer deposed that during the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of the witnesses and seized those fake currencies. The seized notes were sent to the SFSL for examination. The scientific expert had given his opinion that those notes were not genuine. His report was marked as Exbt.-5 series on being identified by P.W.-9, another investigating officer who was endorsed afterwards. 21. On meticulous scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses, it has come to the fore that P.W.-1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 20.12.2012, Gouranga Bhatta and Nepal Debnath, P.Ws-5 & 6 respectively came to his house to verify whether the notes received from Sadhan Ch. Shil Sharma and Badsha Miah were genuine or not. Whereas all other remaining witnesses have stated that said Nataraj Chakraborty was at the Office Room where the notes were placed before him for verification. This has cast serious doubt regarding the place of seizure of the notes. More importantly, from the seizure memo it is found that those notes were seized at the police station itself. But all the witnesses have stated that those notes were recovered and seized at the office of the puja committee itself. This leads another suspicious circumstance about the integrity of recovery and seizure of those counterfeit currencies (Exbt. M.O.-1). 22. A bare perusal of the entire evidence makes it clear that none of the witnesses had questioned the appellant-Badsha Miah wherefrom he received those currencies and whether he had any knowledge that those currencies were fake or forged. 23. I have gone through the examination of the accused-appellant under Section 313 of CrPC and I find no such specific question was put to the appellant as to whether he had any knowledge that those notes were fake or forged and whether he bought 3 nos. of chain from the stationary shop of Raju Banik (P.W.-2) knowing that the same to be forged or counterfeit. 24. of chain from the stationary shop of Raju Banik (P.W.-2) knowing that the same to be forged or counterfeit. 24. Keeping in view the charges framed against the appellant, according to me, the entire evidence led on by the prosecution witnesses had miserably failed to establish the charge that the appellant had any knowledge or having reason to believe that those notes were forged or counterfeit and he intended to use the same as genuine, and thereby, committed offence punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C of the IPC. 25. Another striking feature in the instant case is that, the maker of the SFSL report i.e., the Scientific Expert who examined the seized counterfeit currencies (Exbt-M-1 series) was not examined, and surprisingly, no attempt was made from the side of the prosecution to produce the Scientific Expert before the Trial Court. According to me, non-examination of the Scientific Expert is prejudicial to the appellant. The appellant was deprived of putting questions to the expert under which circumstances he received the notes and how he examined the notes. In the context of the case, it is one of the aspects to suspect the prosecution case. 26. It further manifests that after seizure of 10 numbers of denominations of rupees five hundred, those currencies were never sealed. Even the investigating officer in his deposition only stated that he prepared the seizure list after the said currency notes were seized. It casts a serious doubt about the integrity of such seizure of those denominations, even no evidence was produced to prove the chain of custody. More so, after perusal of the forwarding letter and opinion of the forensic expert, it comes to light that how and in what manner the said forensic science laboratory had received those denominations are not reflected (Exbt-5 series). However, in the report, the opinion of the forensic expert has been written as under:- “Examination of aforesaid bank notes under magnifying lens, stereo-microscope and VSC-5000 in its UV, IR, oblique and transmitted light regions and also by the feel of touching and viewing against sunlight and in different angles reveals that the bank notes stamped and marked Q1 to Q10 are counterfeit bank notes.” 27. A close scrutiny of the above note reveals that the bank notes were stamped and marked as Q1 to Q10. But it is not clear who had marked those notes as Q1 to Q10. A close scrutiny of the above note reveals that the bank notes were stamped and marked as Q1 to Q10. But it is not clear who had marked those notes as Q1 to Q10. From a fresh reading of the deposition of the investigating officer, it is found that he was silent who had marked those denominations of rupees five hundred. Even the seizure list, dated 20.12.2012 only bears the numbers of those counterfeit currencies but the State Forensic Science Laboratory report did not reflect who had marked those denominations as Q1 & Q10. It further becomes apparent for the evidence led on by the prosecution that the seized counterfeit denominations were not sealed in a packet in presence of witnesses and till the packet was broken by State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), nobody has access to those notes. In my opinion, in this nature of cases, the integrity of seized sample is highly important as the prosecution has to prove the chain of custody to establish that the integrity of the sample was never compromised. But, in the case in hand, there is no evidence relating to the chain of custody or the sample in order to preserve the integrity of the seized materials. There is no evidence other than the evidence of possession of the so called denominations of Rs.500/-. 28. After perusal of the provision of Section 489-B of IPC, in my opinion, the following ingredients are necessary to be fulfilled: (a) the notes in question, either currency notes or bank notes; (b) such bank notes or currency notes are 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 to be fulfilled: (a) the notes in question, either currency notes or bank notes; (b) such notes were forged or counter feited; (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. 29. 29. In the backdrop of analysis on factual and legal aspects as outlined here-in-above, it is aptly clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to fulfil the above mentioned ingredients in the manner what is required as indicated above to bring home the charges of committing offence under Sections 489-B & 489-C framed against appellant. 30. Having held so, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.10.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge cannot sustain and, accordingly, is set aside and quashed. 31. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and the appellant is acquitted. It has been informed that the appellant is on bail. Therefore, the bail bond submitted by appellant stands discharged. The surety is also discharged from his liability.