State of Rajasthan @APPELLANT@Hash Bheru Lal

State has preferred this Leave to Appeal under Section 378 (iii) & (i) Cr.P.C. to challenge judgment dated 6th of December 2016 passed by Special

Judge (Fake Currency Cases) and Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.20/15. The

learned trial Court, by the impugned order, has acquitted accused respondent of offence under Section 489-B IPC.

The facts, apposite for the purpose of this Leave to Appeal, are that on 14.04.2015, complainant Shambhulal submitted a written report before SHO,

Police Station Deogarh, District Rajsamand, inter-alia, alleging therein that while he was working with co-employee Aslam Khan at M/s. Chandanmal

Jain & Sons petrol-pump, on the very same day at about 9 AM, Bherulal Regar came there and handed over six notes in the denomination of Rs.500

for filling diesel. The report further unfurled that upon checking the notes, suspicion arose about their genuineness and therefore those notes were

handed over to the owner of petrol pump Shri Prakashchand Jain and his co-employee Aslam Khan. In the report, it is also averred that the accused

respondent used those fake currency notes as original.  Pursuant to the report, Case No.132/15 was registered against accused-respondent for

offence under Section 498-B IPC.  Police, after investigation, submitted challan against the accused-respondent and one more accomplice for

offence under Sections 489-B and 120-B IPC in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh, District Rajsamand.   Later on, the case

was committed to the learned trial Court.

The learned trial Court, after hearing on charge, discharged co-accused Subhash for the aforesaid offences vide order dated 15th of October, 2015 but

framed charge against the accusedrespondent for offence under Section 489-B IPC and on denial was put on trial. During trial, learned trial Court

recorded statements of 9 prosecution witnesses and exhibited 12 documents.  After conclusion of evidence of the prosecution, accused-

respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on his behalf police statements of PW4 Ramchandra were exhibited as Ex.D/1.  Final

arguments were, thereafter, heard and the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment, recorded its definite finding that neither prosecution has been

able to prove that the same notes, which were recovered from the accusedrespondent, are produced before the Court, nor there is any cogent

evidence to show that those fake notes were knowingly used by him as genuine. The learned trial Court, with this sort of finding, finally concluded

that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts, which obviously entitles him for benefit of doubt.

I have heard learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for accused-respondent, perused the impugned judgment and thoroughly scanned the record

of the case.

In common parlance, using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes is a serious offence and therefore Legislature in its wisdom

has prescribed stringent punishment for the same.  However, bare reading of Section 489-B IPC makes it abundantly clear that mere trafficking

in counterfeit currency notes by an incumbent is not sufficient to constitute the said offence. An incumbent using fake or counterfeit currency notes

or bank notes knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit can be penalized for the offence. In substance, to bring

home offence under Section 489-B IPC, prosecution is required to tender cogent evidence to establish following requirements.

(a) The prosecution has failed to prove that relevant currency note or bank note was forged or counterfeit;

(b) That the accused sold to or received from some person, or trafficked in, or used as genuine the aforesaid currency note or bank note;

(c) That when the accused did so, he had the knowledge or reason to believe about its forged counterfeit.

Therefore, in order to sustain conviction for the aforesaid offence, the prosecution has not only to prove that he had the possession of counterfeit note,

having reason to believe it as such, but also to prove circumstances which lead clearly, indubitably and irresistibly through his intention to use the notes

on the public.  Such intention can be proved by a collateral circumstance that he had palmed off such notes before, or that he was in possession of

such notes before or that he was in possession of such notes in such large a number that his possession for any other purpose was inexplicable. Â

If the requisite parameters envisaged under Section 489-B IPC are examined in the backdrop of evidence tendered by prosecution, then it would ipso

facto reveal that the evidence in this behalf is lacking requisite sting to bring home guilt against the accused-respondent. The material evidence in

this behalf is of PW2 Shambhulal (complainant).

A bare reading of the statement of PW2 makes it crystal clear that the witness has though attributed allegation to the accused of tendering counterfeit

currency notes for filling diesel but there is no whisper that accused-respondent has knowingly used those fake currency notes as genuine.  The

witness during his cross-examination is also not sure that seized notes were handed over to police in his presence.  It is also borne out from his

cross-examination that accused Bherulal informed him that he borrowed those currency notes from one Subhash Soni. The following statements of

the witness during cross-examination are relevant:

“HkS:yky dks tc eSaus udyh uksV ds ckjs esa crk;h rks mlus udyh uksV lqHkk""k lksuh ls ykuk crk;kA HkS:yky us bZekunkjh ls tks uksV mlds ikl

Fks fudky dj mlus ns fn;sAâ€​

Likewise, other important witness is Chandanmal Jain (PW1), proprietor of the petrol-pump.  When PW1 Chandanmal Jain was examined, the

envelope containing seized currency notes was also produced by the prosecution During examination of the witness, when the statements of PW1

were recorded, after recording his examination-in-chief, the Court has to put a note, which reads as under:

uksV%& U;k;ky; eky[kkuk ls ,d fyQkQk [kqyh voLFkk ls izkIr gqvkA fyQkQs es ls 500 ds 06 uksV fudys ftuds uEcj Øeâ€k% 3,Q,375314]

3,Q,375331] 3,Q,375348] 3,Q,375349] 6vkj,y928433] 6vkj,y928434 vkfVZdy ,d ykxk;r N gSA ftudks iqfyl us tIr fd;k FkkA

As per note, the envelope, which was produced from Malkhana, was open and not sealed though containing the requisite notes. Following parts of the

statements of witness PW1 are sufficient to show that accused-respondent has not knowingly used the counterfeit currency notes as genuine:

“HkS:yky ls esjh ckr phr gqbZ esus mlls iqNk uksV dgka ls yk;k rks mlus dgk fd eSa lksuh th ls m/kkj ysdj vk;k gwWA ;g ckr lgh gS fd HkS:yky us

ejs s ls dksbZ pkykdh ugha dh tkgka ls yk;k ogka ls crk fn;kAâ€​

Similarly, the other witness PW3 Aslam has also corroborated the versions of these two witnesses.Â

 Therefore, in totality, prosecution has failed to prove that accused-respondent has used counterfeit notes or bank notes as genuine one while

knowing that these notes were fake and counterfeit notes. Â Â Moreover, the production of unsealed envelope containing the requisite notes from

Malkhana has also created a suspicion about the fact that those were the same notes which were seized by the police.  In that background, the

conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court expressing suspicion about the notes produced from Malkhna as that of the same notes, which were

recovered from the accused, is a just conclusion and also appears to be a reasonable inference satisfying the test of prudency. That apart, sans any

evidence of knowingly use of fake currency notes as genuine by the accused-respondent, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court is just and

reasonable in the backdrop of available material.  There remains no quarrel that scope of interference against the judgment of acquittal is very

much limited and the Court is not expected to substitute its view for that of the view taken by the learned trial Court even if two views are possible.Â

True it is that High Court in exercise of power under Section 378 Cr.P.C. can reapprise evidence and conclusions drawn by learned trial Court but

only in case when judgment of trial Court is perverse, i.e. against the weight of evidence. It is also trite that where two views are reasonably

possible from very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.  In totality, in my considered

opinion, the impugned judgment is neither perverse nor suffers from any legal infirmity or non-consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record

and therefore I feel dissuaded to grant leave to appeal in the matter.

Consequently, leave craved for is declined and the appeal is, therefore, rejected.