Chattisgarh High Court
Saradu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 February, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:10078
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No.603 of 2010
The date when The date when the The date when the judgment
the judgment is judgment is is uploaded on the website
reserved pronounced Operative Full
17.12.2025 26.02.2026 -- 26.02.2026
1 - Abhishek Sahu Aged About 25 Years S/o Chhabiram Sahu R/o
Nayapara, PS Gobra Nayapara, Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.)
Appellant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through the Arakshi Kendra New Rajendra
Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
Respondent(s)
CRA No.658 of 2010
1 - Saradu S/o Phool Singh Kashyap aged 32 years, R/o Village Peetechua PS Vishramgudi, District Bastar (C.G.) Appellant (s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through PS New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) Digitally signed by R For Appellant (s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with Ms. NIRALA 2 Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate in CRA No.603/10 and Mr. J. A. Lohani, Advocate in CRA No.658/10 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. GA Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment
1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as such the same have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by a common order.
2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2010 passed by the learned 9th Upper Session Judge, FTC, Raipur (C.G.) in ST No.193/2007, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 489 (C) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.06.2007 at about 1.30 P.M., the A.S.I. namely Kishor Soni received an information from the informant that two suspicious persons are standing in front of Ashoka Millennium, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur. On the basis of information, Kishor Soni, Crime Squad and Constable No.1329 reached on the spot and made an enquiry from the appellants. On enquiry the said Police Official seized five fake currency notes, one mobile and a motorcycle from the present appellants. Thereafter the present appellants were taken into custody and First Information Report (Exhibit P-9) was registered against them. The seized fake currency notes were sent for 3 examination and after examination it was found that it is the fake currency notes. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court erred in convicting the appellants solely on the basis of the statement of PW-5 ASI, Kishore Soni. Both the seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has also not considered the evidence of PW-3 Anil Kumar in its true perspective but the learned Trial Court has not considered the above said aspects of the matter and has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of M. Mammutti vs State of Karnataka, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 723, Umashanker vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 642, Roney Dubey vs State of West Bengal, reported in 2007 SCC Online Cal 549 and in the matter of Sujit Biswas vs State of Assam, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 406, 4 judgment rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of Bachan Singh and another vs The State of Punjab, reported in 1981 SCC Online P&H 47 and judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay in the matter of Karim Abdul Shaikh and another vs The State of Maharashtra, passed in CRA No.199/2016, decided on 08.02.2021.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellants. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 489-C of IPC against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment.
8. PW-1 Tirath Yadav and PW-4 Dhirendra Kumar Sahu both are witnesses of arrest memo. They admitted their signatures on the documents (Ex-P/1 & Ex-P/2) but they denied any proceeding before them and stated that they signed on the documents on 5 policy saying. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross- examined them but they denied all suggestions of prosecution.
9. PW-3 Anil Kumar Singh admitted his signature on seizure memo (Ex-P/6 & P/7) on A to A part of the same and stated that the police caught two persons who were accused and seized Rs.500/-, total 5 notes of Rs.100/- from them. In the cross- examination, he admitted this suggestion of defence that police had called him at police station then he went to police station.
10. The Investigating Officer PW-5 Kishore Soni stated that on the basis of information received by the informant, he interrogated both the accused and found Rs.500/-, total 5 notes of Rs.100/- and prepared seizure memo (Ex-P/5, P/6 & P/7). In the cross- examination, he admitted that near the place of seizure of notes, the people or shopkeepers over there were not made witnesses. He admitted that the informer had not told his vehicle number of the appellants and had not told their physical appearance and told that they are standing their in suspicious condition. He admitted that on the basis of suspicion, he caught both the accused.
11. PW-3 Anil Kumar Singh admitted this suggestion of defence that he has good relations with the policemen as he does the work of selling clothes by wandering. He also admitted this suggestion that by seeking the crowd, the stopped at the place of occurrence and prior to his reaching, what happened he does not know. The 6 other witness Dharmendra Kumar Sahu (PW-4) stated that he went to police station and police prepared seizure memo of vehicle and police told that the vehicle is the stolen vehicle, then he signed on the documents. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen the appellants while signing in the seizure (Ex-P/1 & P/2). He also admitted that the notes, motorcycle and mobile were not shown by the police while preparing seizure (Ex- P/6). He also admitted that before taking his signatures on the documents (Ex-P/6 & P/7) at the police station, the signature of another witness Anil Kumar was taken and thereafter his signature was taken.
12. Close scrutiny of statement of all the witnesses clearly shows that the prosecution only proved this fact that some fake currently notes were seized as per seizure memo (Ex-P/6) from the possession of the appellants, but there is no any evidence provided by the prosecution which may show that appellants had any knowledge or reasons to believe that notes were counterfeit.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M. Mammuti (supra) held that where it is not shown that the appellants had knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were counterfeits, the conviction is not proper. It further held that the presumption of knowledge from mere possession can only be drawn if the appellants knew this fact that the notes were counterfeit.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umashanker 7 (supra) held in paras 7,8 & 9 as under:-
"7. Sections 489-A to 489-E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency- note 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 Sections 489B and 489C 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 489B 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 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 currency-noted 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 to hold that the charges framed under Sections 489B and 489C are not proved. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Sections 489B and 489C of I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charges [see: M. Mammutti Vs. State of Karnataka ].
9. Accordingly, the order under challenge of the High Court dated November 2, 1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 8 39 of 1992 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him."
15. In light of the above, in the present case also the prosecution has failed to prove any knowledge or mens rea on the part of the appellants but no material has been brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellants had requisite mens rea. The statements of seizure witnesses are also contradictory to each other. Thus the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any clinching or legally admissible evidence against the appellants but the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these aspects of the matter and gave wrong finding against the appellants.
16. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 489-C of IPC.
17. The appellants are reported to be on bail.
18. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9
19. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/-
Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala