Balraj (Balraj Singh) vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J. (Oral)

The challenge here is to the patently unwarranted and wholly unsustainable conviction of the appellantBalraj Singh, for offences under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. The case against the appellant being that he had, in his possession, a counterfeit Rs. 100/ currency note, which he tried to use as genuine by seeking to exchange it at the Bank for notes of smaller denomination.

According to the prosecution and this is not disputed by the appellant, on June 17, 1983, the appellantBalraj Singh went to the Punjab and Sind Bank, Panipat and handed over a currency note of Rs. 100/ to the Cashier and asked for Rs. 10/ currency notes to be given to him in exchange. The Cashier PW 4, Iqbal Singh, on examining the note, suspected it to be counterfeit and he accordingly took it to the Bank Manager PW 2 Amarjit Singh Bindra who shared this suspicion. The currency note was then taken into possession and the matter was reported to the police where a case was registered. The currency note in question was sent to the Reserve Bank for expert opinion. It was opined by the Reserve Bank that the currency note was indeed counterfeit.

In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellantBalraj Singh admitted that he had given currency note in question for getting it exchanged for Rs. 10/ notes and added that he had taken this currency note from the liquor vend in the village where he worked. In defence DW 1 Hari Chand, the uncle of the appellant appeared in the witness box and deposed that he was running the liquor vend in village jointly with the appellantBalraj and that on the day of the incident, that is, June 17, 1983, he had given Rs. 3100/ to Balraj and sent him to the Panipat Distillery. The appellant had brought back the receipt Exhibit EE from the distillery for Rs. 2124/ that day, but later it was learnt that Balraj had been held up on account of some currency note.

In dealing with offences under Section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, it is to be appreciated that mere possession or use of a forged or counterfeit currency note cannot by itself fasten criminal liability. There is another essential ingredient which must be proved before guilt can be established, namely, that the possession or use of the forged or counterfeit currency note was with the knowledge that it was so forged or counterfeit or at any rate, it must be shown by the prosecution that the accused had reason to believe that the said currency note was forged of counterfeit. This aspect of the matter appears to have been wholly ignored by the trial court. It is pertinent to note in this behalf that the currency note in question, even as per the Bank Manager, PW 2 Amarjit Singh Bindra, was such that to a layman it would appear to be genuine. This witness, in fact, added that only an experteye could detect it to be forged or counterfeit. Not only this, it appears that even the investigating officer, P.W. 6 ASI Bhagwan Dass entertained some doubt about the currency note being counterfeit as he deposed that he did not arrest the appellant when the case was registered against him as he considered it proper to arrest him only after getting the opinion of the Reserve Bank of India with regard to the currency note.

Further, the conduct of the appellant also appears to be in consonance with his ignorance of the currency note being counterfeit inasmuch as he throughout admitted that he had given it into the Bank and he stuck to his consistent explanation regarding its possession, namely; that he had brought it from the liquor vend where some customers may have handed it in. This was the explanation which according to the Bank Manager, he gave on the day of the incident and similar was the plea put forth by him in a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Such thus being the circumstances here, there is clearly no warrant for the assumption that the appellant either knew or had reason to believe that currency note was not genuine. It would, therefore, be gross miscarriage of justice to maintain the conviction of the appellant which, on the face of it, was wholly uncalled for.

The conviction of the appellant and the sentences imposed upon him are consequently hereby set aside. This appeal is thus accepted. The bail bonds of the appellant, who is on bail, are hereby discharged.