JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. The appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment & Order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl in SC No. 234 of 2015, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 489-C Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh (rupees one lakh), in default S.I. for 6 months, vide Sentence Order dated 05.03.2019 2. Brief facts of the case is that a written FIR was submitted at the Police Station on 4.7.2015 by S. Sithlou, Superintendent, Anti Smuggling Unit, Customs, Aizawl, stating that on the basis of information received on 2.7.2015, a combined team of the Customs Anti-Smuggling Unit, Aizawl and troops of the Border Security Force arrested Lalramchuana, S/o Zarzoliana (L), Bawngkawn Durtlang Road, Aizawl on the same day on the World Bank road, at Falkawn, Aizawl. They recovered 970 (nine hundred seventy) fake Indian currency notes (FICNs) from him, each having a nominal denomination of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand). The fake notes were seized by the Customs. Lalramchuana was detained by them and remanded to Customs custody with the permission of Court. On receipt of the FIR, Bawngkawn Police Station Case No. 142/15 dated 4.7.2015 under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code was registered and investigated into. The informant and a number or witnesses were examined. The 970 seized FICNs of nominal value Rs.9.70 lakhs in total which had been seized by the Customs in connection with C.No.03/CL/IMP/CUS/AS-AIZ/15-16 dated 2.7.2015 under the Customs Act, 1962, produced by the informant, were re-seized at the Bawngkawn Police Station and a seizure memo was prepared. The accused, Lalramchuana, was arrested and forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl with a prayer to have his statement recorded by a judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The seized notes were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Aizawl for examination. A report received from the laboratory stated that the notes were counterfeit and the investigation revealed that the accused had been in possession of counterfeit currency notes knowing them to be counterfeit and intending to use them as genuine, the Charge sheet was then submitted, and he was accordingly sent for trial charged under section 489-C IPC. 3. A report received from the laboratory stated that the notes were counterfeit and the investigation revealed that the accused had been in possession of counterfeit currency notes knowing them to be counterfeit and intending to use them as genuine, the Charge sheet was then submitted, and he was accordingly sent for trial charged under section 489-C IPC. 3. The Chargesheet included a list of six witnesses on whom the prosecution proposed to rely. Among the documents forwarded along with the Chargesheet were a seizure inventory prepared by the informant, Customs Department, a Questionnaire statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and a confessional statement of the accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The trial court framed charge against the accused under section 489’C’ IPC on 25.04.2016 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and asked for trial. Thereafter the trial court listed the points for determination as under; (i) Whether notes suspected to be FICNs were seized from the possession of the accused on 2.7.2015? (ii) If so, whether the notes seized were FICNs, or whether there were procedural defects that would prevent such a determination? (iii) If the notes were FICNs, whether the accused had knowledge or reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intended to use the same as genuine or that they may be used as genuine? (iv) If so, what punishment would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case ? 5. The trial court examined 6(six) nos. prosecution witnesses The accused on examination under section 313 Cr.P.C denied any knowledge that the currency notes seized were fake currency. The evidentiary value of the statement of the accused recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, produced in evidence by PW2 as Exbt.P-2. was considered in the light of binding precedents and the trial court convicted the accused under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused to undergo R.I for 3 years and pay a fine of 1 lakh in default SI for 6 months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentenced order the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court had erroneously convicted the appellant without any iota of evidence. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentenced order the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court had erroneously convicted the appellant without any iota of evidence. That the appellant had no knowledge that the seized currency notes were fake currency notes as it was very difficult to differentiate the notes between fake or genuine. That the essential ingredients necessary to sustain conviction of the appellant under section 439-C IPC has not been made out by the prosecution. That the article was seized only on the grounds of illegal importation and the FIR submitted is not as per the chargesheet framed against him. While the FIR states that the accused was taken under Custom Case No.C.03/CL/IMP/CUS/AS-AZL/15-16 dated 2.7.2015 under the Customs Act wherein the Custom law requires to prove that the seized fake currency notes are illegal imported or attempted to be exported for the prosecution of the offender. That from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses it is seen that there were no civilian witnesses during the seizure and that the 2 (two) BSF personals stated to be present at the time of seizure of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FINC) were not made a witness. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Apex Court decisions in Umashanker Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 642 , Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808 , Lakhanlal alias Lakhan Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2021) 6 SCC 100 para 17 7. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the appellant/accused had made voluntary statement before Pw. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and that he has also made a voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act which clearly shows is involvement and this statement is corroborated by the prosecution witnesses PW Nos. 1, 2 & 3. 8. Having heard the submission of both the parties, this court finds that it is an undisputed fact that Fake Indian Currency notes of Rs. 1000 denomination numbering 970 i.e. Rs. 9,70,000/- were seized from the possession of the appellant on 2.7.2015. 1, 2 & 3. 8. Having heard the submission of both the parties, this court finds that it is an undisputed fact that Fake Indian Currency notes of Rs. 1000 denomination numbering 970 i.e. Rs. 9,70,000/- were seized from the possession of the appellant on 2.7.2015. The appellant is charged under 489-C IPC, thus, prosecution evidence adduce in the Court is scrutinized herein to examine whether the appellant knew that the said Currency notes were actually fake currency notes in view of Section 489-C IPC which reads as under : “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.” The Apex Court in Umashanker Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra) states that : “8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Sections 489B and 489-C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or banknotes 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 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. 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 Criminal Procedure Code. On these facts, we have no option but to hold that the charges framed under Sections 489B 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 and acquit him of the said charges” In light of the above the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is examined. 9. Pw No.1 Sh. S.Sithlou, Superintendent, Customs deposed that on 2.7.2015 the Custom Office, Aizawl received reliable information that there was one person possessing FICN, Fake Indian Currency Notes and requested to intercept and arrest the person and seize the FICN. On receiving the information they contacted BSF DC (G), Lunglei and 2 BSF personnel are deployed. He and party including 2 (two) BSF personnel proceeded towards Falkland, about 20 minutes after, the suspected person/appellant came with his Bike bearing Registration No. Ml-01 L1137, they stopped the Bike and checked the rucksack carried by the person and found the FICN packed in a black polythene. Mr. K.Neihsial interrogated him and he stated that he had obtained the FICN from one Salima of Badarpur, Assam who was dealing in the business of FICN. The appellant stated that the FICN was handed over to him by Salima, which was to be deposited in his account as requested by Salima by promising to give an award. Thereafter the accused/appellant was handed over to Bawngkawn Police alongwith the seized FICN. 10. In his cross examination he deposed that sealing, packing and counting was not done at the place of seizure. That no civilian witnesses were present at the time of seizure. He also accepted the suggestion that it would be difficult for a layman to differentiate whether the currency notes were fake or genuine. That the said article were seized only on the ground of illegal importation and the FIR submitted by him was exhibited as Exbt-P-3. 11. Pw No.2: Sh. He also accepted the suggestion that it would be difficult for a layman to differentiate whether the currency notes were fake or genuine. That the said article were seized only on the ground of illegal importation and the FIR submitted by him was exhibited as Exbt-P-3. 11. Pw No.2: Sh. K. Neihsial, Inspector of Custom who was also present at the time of seizure of the FICN alongwith PW-1 states that the accused on interrogation stated that he had obtained the FICN from one Salima of Badarpur, Assam who was dealing in the business of FICN. The appellant stated that the FICN was handed over to him by Salima, which was to be deposited in his account as requested by Salima by promising to give an award. However, during the cross-examination he has stated that they were other civilian witnesses at the time of seizure. He has also admitted that it would be difficult for lay man to differentiate whether the notes seized were genuine or FICN. He has also stated that the said articles were seized on the grounds of illegal importation. He has admitted that the seized articles were not produced before the Magistrate or any other person before the same was submitted to the O/C Bawngkawn, P.S. He also deposed that the C.J.M., Aizawl, had directed the accused to be remanded in the custody of the Customs for 48 (forty-eight) hours, but they handed him over to the Bawngkawn Police along with the seized materials before the expiry of the period.He has exhibited the inventory of the seized goods as Exbt P-1, the questionnaire statement of the accused/appellant as Exbt-P(2) and the seized FICN as Exbt-M-1. 12. Pw No.3 : Inspector, Anti Smuggling Unit, Custom has deposed that he was also present, on 2.7.2015 when the Custom Office, Aizawl received reliable information that there was one person possessing FICN and requested to intercept and arrest him and seize the FICN. Since they received the information they contacted BSF DC (G), Lunglei and 2 BSF personnel were deployed. Mr. S. Sithlou, Superintendent, Anti Smuggling Unit, Customs Division Aizawl and party including himself and 2 (two) BSF personnel proceeded towards Falkland. About 20 minutes later the suspected person came on his Bike bearing Registration No. Ml-01 L-1137, they stopped the Bike and checked the rucksack carried by the suspected person and found the FICN packed in a black polythene. Mr. S. Sithlou, Superintendent, Anti Smuggling Unit, Customs Division Aizawl and party including himself and 2 (two) BSF personnel proceeded towards Falkland. About 20 minutes later the suspected person came on his Bike bearing Registration No. Ml-01 L-1137, they stopped the Bike and checked the rucksack carried by the suspected person and found the FICN packed in a black polythene. When Mr. S. Sithlou interrogated the suspected person he stated that he had obtained the FICN from one Salima of Badarpur, Assam who was dealing in the business of FICN. The appellant stated that the FICN was handed over to him by Salima, which was to be deposited in his account as requested by Salima by promising to give an award. PW No.3 also admitted on cross examination that the ground for seizure of the FICN was due to illegal import. 13. Pw No. 4 is the forensic expert posted as Assistant Director at the Forensic science Laboratory who conducted the examination of FICN and he opined that the currency notes were not genuine but counterfeit and his opinion was exhibited as Exbt-P-6. 14. Pw No.5 : is the Judicial Magistrate, First Class who recorded that statement of the appellant under 164 Cr.PC. The appellant on examination under Section 164 Cr.PC stated as under : “I have a truck, 1613 TC Engine, which I look after. I used to supply betel to Badarpur with it. The main purchaser, Babula, passed away without clearing substantial dues. Before he died, he gave my phone number to a person called Salima. I have not met this person till date. Around the end of the month of June, Salima telephoned me. He said he would send money which I should deposit in a bank and then send him goods. As Babula had passed away without clearing his dues and as I did not know anyone else who wanted to purchase betel, I was in a financial crisis. Salima said that he would clear the dues of his friend, Babula, I accepted his proposal. Then, I believe it was on 26.6.15, Salima sent a man (whose name I don’t know) with money amounting to Rs. 9.70 lakhs along with SBI and UBI bank slips, and he delivered it to me in my house. Salima said that he would clear the dues of his friend, Babula, I accepted his proposal. Then, I believe it was on 26.6.15, Salima sent a man (whose name I don’t know) with money amounting to Rs. 9.70 lakhs along with SBI and UBI bank slips, and he delivered it to me in my house. On 2.7.2015, I though that, on my way to Salem Veng to collect some outstanding dues, I would go to the MRB, Chanmari Branch, to deposit some money (in the account of my betel supplier in Champhai, Thangkhanmunga), but before I would reach, while I was on the World Bank Road in Falkland Veng, I was apprehended by a team of the Customs and the BSF working together. I did not know that the money I was carrying was fake; I came to know of this only after I was arrested. I never knew that Salima would do something like this.” 15. Pw No.6 is the case I/O who deposed that he was entrusted with the investigation of the case and that he had re-seized the FICN and prepared the seizure memo which was signed by the witnesses and he recorded their statements. He had sent the FICN to Forensic Science Laboratory where the notes were found to be fake. From his investigation, he found prima facie case under Section 489 IPC and accordingly filed the charge sheet against the appellant/accused. The fake currency notes are exhibited as Ext M-1 and the charge sheet submitted by him as Ext. P-8. He has also admitted that by merely looking FICN he cannot say that it is fake. He also admitted that the FICN was produced along with the customs seizure memo and it was bound together but not placed in a sealed package and the seized articles did not have the signature of the accused. However, the custom seizure memo was signed by the accused, he also admitted that Customs or BSF had first intercepted the accused and recovered the FICN from his possession. It was a joint operation but no BSF personnel has been made a witness. 16. However, the custom seizure memo was signed by the accused, he also admitted that Customs or BSF had first intercepted the accused and recovered the FICN from his possession. It was a joint operation but no BSF personnel has been made a witness. 16. The accused on examination under 313 Cr.PC did not deny that he was stopped by the Customs officials along with BSF at World Bank Road and the notes of the nominal value of Rs.9,70,000/- was seized from his possession but stated that he did not know that the notes were fake, that he was taken in the Customs Office by the officer who has stopped him. That he was no expert and he cannot dispute the findings of the expert that the notes were fake. He further explained that the money was given to him by Salima who is the husband of the sister of Babula, who own him money for the betel nuts which he had brought and that he was pressurized by the people from Champhai who had supplied him the betel nuts, to make payment quickly. He informed Salima that Babula had passed away and Salima bought the money to Badarpur. That the rest of the evidence regarding his production before the CJM and submission of FIR is true. He denied the evidence that the seized money was received by him on a promise that he would be awarded by Salima. He stated that all the evidence against him was true except that he knew that the seized currency notes were fake. 17. On scrutiny of the evidence adduced in the trial court it is seen that the deposition of PW1, PW2 and PW3 are almost identical. They have tried to establish the evidence of mens rea by deposing that appellant on interrogation, stated that the FICN was handed over to him by Salima, which was to be deposited in his account as requested by Salima by promising to give an award. However the said witnesses are all customs personnel, who had seized the said fake Indian currency notes from the appellant and are therefore clearly interested witnesses. This alleged statement of the appellant is also said to have been made by him on interrogation by PW 1 and therefore this alleged statement wherein the mens rea is said to be made out cannot be said to have been made voluntarily. This alleged statement of the appellant is also said to have been made by him on interrogation by PW 1 and therefore this alleged statement wherein the mens rea is said to be made out cannot be said to have been made voluntarily. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses themselves that it was not possible to know whether the currency notes were fake or genuine unless tested by an expert. Appellant in his statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C has denied any knowledge that the seized currency notes were fake and counterfeit notes. His statement under 313 Cr.P.C is also in consonance with his statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.. 18. I thus find that no material is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant had the requisite mens rea under section 489-C IPC. 19. The learned trial court has based its conviction on the evidence recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 produced in evidence by PW2 as Exbt.P-2 which the trial court considered in the light of the decisions of the Apex court as precedents, I, however find that using the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 as the sole basis for conviction of the accused under section 489-C IPC without substantive corroborative evidence, cannot be held to be an evidence suffice to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant u/s 489-C IPC beyond any reasonable doubt. The Apex Court in Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra) states that : “25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable; it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by report to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy, on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.” 20. In light of the above reasoning and findings this court find it fit to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant and allow this appeal petition by setting aside Judgment & Order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl in SC No. 234 of 2015 and set the appellant at liberty unless required in any other case. 21. Crl.A No.15 of 2019 accordingly stands disposed of.