JUDGMENT : [Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.] 1. This acquittal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 22-12-2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Bilaspur in S.T. No.111/2002 by which respondents No.1 and 2 namely Abid Ali and Mohammad Hanif Chaturvedi have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 489-B and 489-C read with Section 34 of the IPC finding no ground to convict them for the aforesaid offences. This appeal has been preferred challenging the legality, correctness and validity of the impugned judgment. 2. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondents from the aforesaid offences whereas there is sufficient evidence available on record to convict them for the aforesaid offences as admittedly, respondent No.2 had given currency notes of denomination of 500/- for exchange in the bank, to which respondent No.1 Abid Ali had deposited in the bank. Therefore, both the respondents ought to have been convicted under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the IPC and therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 3. None appeared for respondents No.1 and 2. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submission and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. The respondents have been acquitted by the trial Court from the offences under Section 489-B and 489-C of the IPC recording the following finding:- ^^29- vr% mijksDrkuqlkj dh foospuk ls vfHk;qDr vkfcnvyh vkSj eksgEen guhQ prZqosnh us dwVd`R; djsalh uksV dks tkurs gq;s ;k fo'okl fd;s ds dkj.k j[krs gq;s fd og dwVd`R; ;k dwVjfpr gS vkf/kiR; esa j[kdj vlyh dh Hkkafr mi;ksx yk;k x;k gS] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk^^ 6. Sections 489-B and 489-C of the IPC read as under;- 489-B – Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank-notes – Whoever sells to, or buy 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, ans all 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 yeas, or with fine, or with both. 7. An offence under Section 489-B has the following essential ingredients:- 1) selling, buying or receiving from any person or otherwise trafficking currency note or bank note, 2) any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note; 3) knowing (or having reason to believe) that such note was forged or counterfeit. 8. To bring home an offence under Section 489-B of the IPC (a) the prosecution is to prove that the relevant currency note or bank note was forged or counterfeit; (b) that the accused sold to or received from, some person, or trafficked in, or used as genuine the aforesaid currency note or bank note; (c) when the accused did so, he had knowledge or reason to believe about its being forged or counterfeit. In order to sustain the conviction of an accused, the prosecution has not only to prove that he had the possession of counterfeit note, having reason to believe it as such, but also to prove circumstances which lead clearly, indubitably and irresistably to his intention to use/circulate the notes in the public. Further, the prosecution has to prove that he had intention and knowledge or having reason to believe of its being forged or counterfeit. Burden is on the prosecution to prove that the time when the accused was possessing counterfeit notes he knew that they are the forged ones and mere possession of such notes by him does not shift the burden of the accused in said possession of such notes. 9. Section 489-C of the IPC deals with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeit currency notes or banknotes punishable. Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeit notes are necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Section 489C. 10. 9. Section 489-C of the IPC deals with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeit currency notes or banknotes punishable. Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeit notes are necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Section 489C. 10. In the matter of M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka, [AIR (1979) SC 1705] the Supreme Court has held that where it is not shown that the appellant had knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit, the conviction under Section 489-B and 489-C of the IPC is not proper. It was further held by their Lordships, that presumption of knowledge from mere possession can only be drawn if the notes were apparently counterfeit. 11. In the matter of Umashankar v. State of Chhattisgarh, [ (2001) 9 SCC 642 ] following its earlier decision in the matter of M. Mammutti (supra) the Supreme Court has held that mens rea of offences under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC is knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or bank notes to be forged or counterfeit, which is essential ingredient of such an offence without such 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 489B. So also in the absence of the said mens rea possessing or even intending to use such notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489C and held as under:- “Section 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 to unwary possessions or users. 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 to be forged or counterfeit”. But these provisions are not meant to punish to unwary possessions or users. 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 to be forged or counterfeit”. Without the afore-mentioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise tranfficking 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 Section 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charges [see : M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1979) SC 1705.” 12. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Section 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charges [see : M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1979) SC 1705.” 12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in the light of Section 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code as well as following the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Mammutti (supra) and Umashankar (supra), it is quite vivid that there is evidence on record that respondent No.2 Mohammad Hanif Chaturvedi was the Dharmguru at the relevant point of time and Shahnaz Siddiqi, the co-accused who has been convicted by trial Court had given Rs.25,000/- as a daan (donation) to respondent No.2, out of which respondent No.2 had given 18 notes of denomination of Rs.500 to respondent No.1 Abid Ali and in turn respondent No.1 for getting the notes exchanged/verified has presented before the bank and in turn when the notes were checked in machine they were found counterfeit, then the matter was reported to the police and the notes were found counterfeit by the Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur Branch vide Ex.-P/3. The above stated facts have been found proved and the trial Court has given finding in paragraphs No.27 and 28 of the impugned judgment in that regard which are as under :- ^^27- Lo;a vfHk;kstu lk{kh dz-3 lh-ds [kkaMsdj us ftlus vkfcnvyh ls uksV izkIr fd;s gS vius dFku dh dafMdk 6 esa Li"V#i ls Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vkfcnvyh dh ea'kk ;fn uksVks dks cnyus dh gksrh rks og vkfcnvyh uksVksa ds caMy cka/kus dk dke Hkh lh-ds[kkaMsdj dSlk djrk Fkk vkSj QthZ uksVksa dks og caMy esa Mkydj ns ldrk Fkk fdUrq vkfcnvyh us ,slk ugha fd;k gS blls Li"V #i ls izekf.kr gksrk gS fd vkfcnvyh dks uksVks ds QthZ gksus ds ckjs esa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha Fkh vkSj u gh mlus nqHkkZoukiwoZd vkijkf/kd eufLFkfr dk dksbZ d`R; fd;k gS rFkk guhQ prqZosnh us ek= nkuLo#i 'kgukt flfídh ls jkf'k izkIr dh Fkh ;g rF; 'kgukt flfÌdh vkSj guhQ prqZosnh ds dFku ls vkSj iz-ih-26 ls izekf.kr gS ,slh fLFkfr esa guhQ prqZosnh us Hkh nqHkkZoukiwoZd vkijkf/kd eufLFkfr ls dwVjfpr uksVks dks tkurs gq;s fd dwVjfpr uksV izkIr fd;k gks] ;k mldk mi;ksx fd;k gks] ;g izekf.kr ugh gSA 28- bl fLFkfr es vfHk;qDr vkfcnvyh[kku vkSj eksgEenguhQ prqZosnh dh vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr izekf.kr ugha gksrh gS vkSj mDrnksuksa vfHk;qDrksa us tkurs gq;s ;k fo'okl dk dkj.k j[krs gq;s dwVjfpr uksVks dks izkIr fd;k gks ;k nqO;kZikj fd;k gks] ;g lansg ls ijs ugha dgk tk ldrk vfirq nksuksa vfHk;qDrx.k us uksV izkIr gksus ds L=ksr dks Li"V#i ls izekf.kr fd;k gS vkSj mlds vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr izekf.kr ugh gS lkFk gh ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 489¼[k½] vkSj x ds fy;s vkfcnvyh ,oa eksgEen prqZosnh dks nks"k fl) ugh fd;k tk ldrkA bl laca/k esa vijk/k fu.kZ; tujy ¼2002¼1½ 85 lqizhe dksVZ½ mek'kadj cuke N0x0 jkT;U;k; n`"Vkar rFkk 1979 fdzfeuy ykW tujy 1383 ,e-ekeksrh fo#} dukZVd jkT; U;k;n`"Vkar Hkh mYys[kuh; gSA^^ 13. The trial Court has clearly recorded the above stated finding that mens rea was absent and the respondent No.1 & 2 did not know that the currency notes which were given by Shahnaz Siddiqi – convicted accused to respondent No.2 and in turn respondent No.2 transferred to respondent No.1 for exchange in the bank, were counterfeit. The trial Court has clearly recorded the above stated finding that mens rea was absent and the respondent No.1 & 2 did not know that the currency notes which were given by Shahnaz Siddiqi – convicted accused to respondent No.2 and in turn respondent No.2 transferred to respondent No.1 for exchange in the bank, were counterfeit. As such, the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove that respondents had knowledge or had reason to believe the impugned currency notes to be forged or counterfeit. As the prosecution has brought no evidence on record to show that the respondents have clear mens rea and the matter being so, the trial Court is absolutely justified in acquitting the respondents from the offences under Sections 489- B and 489-C of the IPC. We do not find any merit in the appeal and consequently, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.