TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e found to be counterfeit. On inquiry from Ms. Sanskriti Salia, she informed that the said notes were her saving and in the wake of demonetization she had deposited the said amount. Ms. Sanskriti complied with the directions issued by the Bank authorities and the complaint filed by Smt. Dipika was registered as CR No.22 of 2017 and offences under Section 489(B) of Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short) came to be registered against Ms. Sanskriti Jayant Salia, who has approached this court praying for quashing of the said FIR. 3. The petitioner before us is well educated and has completed postgraduation in commerce. According to the petition, her father is a businessman and she while pursuing her studies, she started working with a company "Enlightned Minds" National English Language Testing & Assessment System at Mulund, in the capacity of Senior Back Office Executive. According to the Petitioner, on 8th November, 2016, the Government of India announced demonetization of old bank notes of Mahatma Gandhi series in the demonetization of Rs. 500/and Rs. 1,000/. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Government of India issued a notification post demonetization, and the demonetized....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of the same, the Petitioner could not have been charged with Section 489(B). The learned Counsel would submit that even if the FIR is perused and construed the way it stands, it do not reflect any knowledge being attributed to the Petitioner and, in fact, she herself is a victim of the counterfeit menace and has been made an scapegoat of entire incident. Thus, according to the Petitioner, perusal of the entire chargesheet and the material collected by the prosecution both, fall short of establishing the charge even prima facie, since it fails to establish knowledge on her part that the notes which she had deposited were forged or fake. His specific submission is that mere possession of the currency notes by her, is not sufficient to foist the charges on her and according to him perusal of the chargesheet would reveal that there is no iota of any evidence to show that the counterfeit notes were of such nature or description that a mere look at them would convey any person of average intelligence that they were counterfeit notes. He would thus submit that continuation of trial and the Petitioner being made to go through the rigmarole of trial would nothing but an abuse of process....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) Whether seized notes are printed/produced from Security press of Government of India. (iii) What are the security features in genuine currency notes of denomination of Rs. 1000/( having silver colored thread) and Rs. 500/( having green colored thread). (iv) In which respect (regarding security features) the seized currency notes differ from that in genuine currency notes. (v) Any other opinion than above points. In response, the Assistant Manager (Tech and Per) on behalf of General Manager, forwarded an opinion report on examination of the suspected forged currency notes to the Investigating Officer. The said report reveals that the opinion was expressed after comparing the alleged counterfeit notes with genuine notes of respective parties with the help of modern scientific instrument, and the observation is reproduced below: 1. Cut size of the note (s) (i) Length : Correct ii) Width : Correct 2. Size of printed design Varies from genuine note 3. Paper (i) Thickness Same as that of Genuine note paper (ii) texture Not as per genuine note 4. Watermarks (i) Main Watermark Created during pape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Counsel for the Petitioner is not disputed by the learned APP Mr. Shaikh. 9. In such circumstances, we will have to examine whether on the basis of the material collected by the investigating agency and on the basis of which chargesheet has been filed, whether invocation and application of Section 489(B) of IPC against the Petitioner is justified. Section 489(B) reads thus: "489B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currencynotes or banknotes.- Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currencynote or banknote, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with 2[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." 10. Perusal of the said Section would reveal that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the said Section and use of the term "knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit" is the sine qua non for inviting penalty under the said provision. When mens rea is conspicuously absent, mere use of any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currencynotes or banknotes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489B of I.P.C. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currencynotes or banknotes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489C 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 years 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 currencynoted being fake on counterfeit was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. On these facts we have no option but ....