[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rohit Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:14070
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No.662 of 2007
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
29.01.2026 24.03.2026 -- 24.03.2026
1 - Rohit Kumar, S/o Kripa Shankar Pandey, aged 32 years, R/o Latiya
Road, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
Appellant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station
Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, PL
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V Judgment
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 24.07.2007 passed by
Digitally
signed the learned Session Judge, Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in ST
by R
NIRALA No.61/2006, arising out of order dated 04.07.2006 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Class-1, Janjgir in Criminal Case
No.837/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under
Sections 489 (B) & 489 (C) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI
for 3 years with fine of Rs.5000/- and RI for 2 years, respectively,
with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused Rohit Kumar
Pandey on 22/12/2005 reached State Bank of India, Akaltara
branch to deposit Rs.50,000/- in the account of his father Kripa
Shankar Pandey and Rs.1,51,000/- in the account of his uncle
Jata Shankar Pandey and filled the deposit slip and handed over
the currency notes to P.W.3 G.L. Dewangan. As in the Cash
counter, cashier takes the water from the sponge to count the
currency note, colour of some notes got fed. When the other
bundles were checked the same fact found. Then the cashier
informed to the Branch Manger (P.W.1). P.W.1 Branch Manger
told to keep them separately and the Branch Manager got
checked the same from Ultra-Violate Machine and caught the
counterfeit currency notes. Thereafter a case was registered
against the appellant. After investigation, the charge sheet was
submitted before the Magistrate concerned and on the basis of
the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available
on record, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the
accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant 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.
She further submits that there is delay in preparing arrest/court
surrender memo (Ex-P/3) as the appellant was present in the
Bank at that time when the police came to take currency notes.
There was no evidence that the appellant had knowledge and
intention about the counterfeit currency notes but the said
aspects of the matter have not been considered by the learned
Trial Court and the appellant has been wrongly convicted and
sentenced for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the appeal
deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs State of Gujarat and
another, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547.
4. 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 appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the
learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 489 (B) and
Section 120-B of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the
learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as
mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.
7. PW-2 Suresh Kumar, Senior Assistant Manager Branch State
Bank of India, Akaltara stated that on the date of incident, he was
working as accountant at that time Manager Choudhary called
him and told him that some person has come to deposit
counterfeit currency, as such the matter is to be reported at the
police station. The Investigating Officer prepared the seizure
memo before him vide Ex-P/1. The article seizure memo is
attached in ST No.61/06 in between State vs Rohit and he
admitted his signature on A to A part of Ex-P/1.
8. PW-3 Prakash Choudhary stated that he was posted as Branch
Manager in SBI, Akaltara. On the date of incident, the accused
Rohit had come to deposit money in two account holders namely
Jatashankar and Krapashankar and total 161 notes were found
counterfeit, upon which notes were dissolved in water solution,
upon which their colour got faded, thereafter the matter was
reported the police station concerned and FIR was registered,
which is attached in ST No.61/2006. The copy of this FIR is Ex-
P/2 and he admitted his signatures on A to A part and B to B part
of the same. The written complaint is also attached along with ST
No.61/2006. The police seized all forged currency notes and
prepared seizure memo (Ex-P/1). The written complaint of FIR is
Ex-P/3. He admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same.
The copy of original FIR is attached in ST No.61/06. He further
stated that the accused Jatashankar in another case is the
account holder in his bank and in his account the accused Rohit
had come to deposit money. The bank slips are Ex-P/4 & P/5 and
he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. The bank
account of Jatashankar is mentioned in Ex-P/6 which is the part
of ST No.61/2006. In the cross-examination he stated that earlier
also the accused Rohit used to come to the bank and he
recognized him but he did not come to meet him on the date of
incident and went to cashier to deposit money.
9. PW-4 Goverdhan Lal Dewangan, Assistant Manager SBI,
Akaltara stated that the accused Rohit had come to deposit
Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,51,000/- through two vouchers in the
account of accused Jatashankar, who was absconding. When
they tried to count the notes, they found that notes are counterfeit
and the same were dissolved in water solution, upon which
colour of the notes got faded, thereafter matter was reported to
Branch Manager Prakash Chand Choudhary and thereafter notes
were counted on machine and total 161 counterfeit notes were
found, thereafter matter was reported to police station. In the
cross-examination, he admitted that the accused Rohit had come
to bank. He denied this suggestion that bank employees had
deliberately considered the forged notes as brought by accused
Rohit.
10. PW-5 Inspector A. K. Khan admitted his signature on FIR
(Ex-P/2), seizure memo (Ex-P/3), (Ex-P/6), arrest memo (Ex-P/8)
and he sent forged counterfeit notes for enquiry to currency note
Press at Nasik through the letter of Police Superintendent vide
Ex-P/9. The report prepared by Nasik Press is Ex-P/10 and the
sample of handwriting of accused Rohit was sent vide Ex-P/11
for analysis and the report of handwriting expert is Ex-P/12. He
also obtained sample signature of Rohit as per Ex-P/15. In para
13 of cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion that it is
true that Jatashankar had given money to accused Rohit to
deposit and Rohit had gone to bank to deposit the same. He
denied this suggestion that he wrongly investigated the matte on
bank officials' saying.
11. PW-7 Dinesh and S. Kamthan admitted their signatures on
seizure memo (Ex-P/18 & P/19). PW-9 Syambhu handwriting
expert stated that he examined handwriting of Rohit Kumar and
gave his report (Ex-P/13-A).
12. The accused Jatashankar, who was absconding, examined
himself in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC and
in answer of question No.52, he stated as under:-
"eS a funksZ"k gW w >qBk Qalk;k x;k gS eS a Bsdsnkjh dk dk;Z djrk gWw dydRrk
dkk Bsdsnkj vaphrks pVthZ o f'kodqekj e.My ls eq> s ,d yk[k ipkl
gtkj :i;s ysuk Fkk mUgksus eq>s jcj esa ca/ks voLFkk esa uksV dks fxudj eq>s
fn;k Fkk ml :i;s ds caMy dks eSa vius ?kj vkus ds Ik'pkr Hkrhtk jksfgr
dks esjs vkSj esj s HkkbZ d`ik 'kadj ds [kkrs es a tek djus ds fy, fn;k Fkk
djsalh uksV lgh gS dh tIrh gS bl laca/k esa eq>s fo'ks"k dksbZ tkudkjh ugh
gSA esjs tkudkjh esa dydRrk ds Bsdsnkj }kjk fn;k x;k uksV lgh uksV FksA"
13. 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 from the possession of
the appellant, but there is no any evidence provided by the
prosecution which may show that appellant had any knowledge
or reasons to believe that notes were counterfeit. The accused
Jatashankar also admitted in his statement under Section 313 of
CrPC that he had only given money to the appellant to deposit in
his account.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M. Mammutti vs
State of Karnataka, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 723, 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.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dipakbhai
Jagdishchandra Patel (supra) held in paras 9 & 10 as under:-
"9. It is the further case of the appellant that the
ingredients of Section 489B and 489C of the IPC have
not been established. In regard to Section 489C, he
sought support from judgment of the Lahore High Court
in Bur Singh v. The Crown. Still further, he sought some
support from the judgment of the learned Single Judge
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, viz., Justice
2(1930) ILR 11 Lah 555 [Criminal Revision No. 1527 of
1929] 13M.M. Punchhi (as His Lordship then was), in
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab3. The Court held as
follows:
"10. In order to sustain the convictions of Joginder Kaur
appellant, the prosecution has not only to prove that
she had the possession of counterfeit note, Exhibit P. 1,
ensuring it or having reason to believe it as such, but
further to prove circumstances which lead clearly,
indubitably and irresistibly to her intention to use the
notes on the public as has been held in Bur Singh v.
The Crown, (1930) ILR 11 Lah 555 : (1931) 32 Cri LJ
351). It has further been held that such intention could
be proved by a collateral circumstance that she had
palmed off such notes before, or that she was in
possession of such notes in such large numbers, that
her possession for any other purpose was inexplicable.
The facts as found are that she had on her person only
one made-up note, that she was an illiterate lady and
that anybody as Sh. 3 1981 SCC Online P&H 47
14Darshan Kumar Ahluwalia, P.W. 2, would have us
believe could be misled to treat it as a genuine note.
She gave the note to Kundan Lal, P.W. 2 and he told
her that it was not a genuine note and his belief was
confirmed when he showed it to others as well. It has
nowhere been asserted that the note was ever returned
to her and having known fully well or having reason to
believe the same to be forged for counterfeit she yet
made another attempt to palm it off. Thus tendering
alone such note to Kundan Lal, P.W., unless the
prosecution could prove that it was with dishonest
intention so as to cause wrongful loss to him and
wrongful gain to herself would not make her act to fall
squarely within Section 420/511, Indian Panal Code, or
to have come within the mischief of Section 489-B or
489-C, Indian Penal Code. The inference sought to be
drawn that she must have known or reason to believe
the note, Exhibit PI, to be counterfeit because her
husband accompanying her was found to be in
possession of similar notes is entirely misplaced for no
common intention has been attributed to them and they
have not been charged with the aid of Section 34,
Indian Penal Code. For the individual act of Joginder
Kaur she cannot be convicted for the above named
offences and must be extended the benefit of doubt.
11. With regard to the case of Bachan Singh it is to be
noted that he was found in possession of 13 counterfeit
ten rupee notes. He is an iron-smith by profession and
barely literate. How could he have the knowledge or
reason to believe the same to be counterfeit is one part
but the other important part is whether he intended to
use the same as genuine or that they may be used as
genuine has further to be proved by the prosecution. It
was held in Bur Singh v. The Crown, ((1931) 32 Cri LJ
351) (Lah) (supra), that mere possession of a forged
note is not an offence under the Indian Penal Code and
in order to bring a case within the purview of Section
489-C, Indian Penal Code, it was not only necessary to
prove that the accused was in possession of forged
notes but it 16should further be established that:
(a) at the time of his possession he - knew the notes to
be forged or had the reason to believe the same to be
forged or counterfeit; and b) he intended to use the
same as; genuine. No further collateral circumstances
in the case have been brought forth such as the
accused had palmed off such notes before, or that he
was in possession of such and similar notes in such
large numbers, that his possession for any other
purpose was inexplicable."
10. Finally, he also drew out attention to the judgment
of this Court in Umashanker v. State of Chhatisgarh4
wherein he emphasised on paragraphs 7 and 8, which
read as follows:
"7. Sections 489-A to 489-E deal with various economic
offences in respect of forged or 4 (2001) 9 SCC 642
17counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. The object
of the 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
banknotes. The currency notes are, in spite of growing
accustomedness to the credit card system, still the
backbone of the commercial transactions by the
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 489-B and
489-C is "knowing or having reason to believe the
currency notes or banknotes are forged or counterfeit".
Without the aforementioned 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. 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 the 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 Sections 489-
B and 489-C IPC and acquit him of the said charges
(see: M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC
723 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 170 : AIR 1979 SC 1705] )."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umashanker vs
State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 642 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."
17. 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
appellant 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 appellant but
the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these aspects of the
matter and gave wrong finding against the appellant.
18. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The
appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 489-B and
489-C of IPC.
19. The appellant is reported to be on bail.
20. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the
appellant is 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
appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
21. 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
