[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

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)

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

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

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,

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

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

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

(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.

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