1 2026:CGHC:1927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 802 of 2015 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 30.10.2025 13.01.2026 -- 13.01.2026 1 - (Died And Deleted) Nityanand Chatar (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 22-09-2025) 2 - Sadanand Das S/o Govind Lal Das Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Amlipali, P.S. Bhathli, District Bargarh, Orissa Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, 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 27.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sarangarh, District Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 Raigarh (C.G.) in ST No.03/2015, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 489-B read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Ashok Kumar Sonkar lodged a report in Police Station Dongripali to the effect that on 19/11/2014 while he was working in the country made liquor shop at about 5.30 pm two persons came to the counter of the liquor shop and handed over the currency note of Rs.1,000/- for the purpose of purchasing liquor and when the complainant felt that the said currency note of Rs.1,000/- is not the original he refused to give liquor and thereafter he and one Nandlal enquired about the same from both the persons and also enquired about their details. They disclosed that they are Nityanand Chatar and Satyanand Das of Orissa and were taken to police station subsequently where the police seized the said currency note and registered the offence against them and they were arrested. 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/appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material 3 available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The counterfeit notes were seized from the co-accused Nityanand who died during pendency of this appeal and there is no evidence against the appellant Sadanand. The prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 489-B of IPC, but the learned Trial Court has not considered the above said aspect of the matter, as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umashanker vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in MANU/SC/0618/2001. 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 deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.1 has died. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 489-B read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial 4 Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 8. Nandlal Prajapati (PW-2) stated that he was selling liquor in liquor distillery, at that time, the appellant No.1 Nityanand came there to buy liquor and gave a note of Rs.1,000/-, to which he suspected that this is a forged note, then he called the police. He admitted his signatures on seizure memo (Ex-P/2) on A to A part and arrest memo (Ex-P/3 & P/4) on A to A part of the same. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted that the police seized Rs.1000 note from the appellant Nityanand. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he does not recognize both the accused as per their gestures. 9. Ashok Kumar Sonkar (PW-3) stated that he was selling liquor in liquor distillery, at that time one person came there to buy liquor and gave a note of Rs.1000/- and by seeing the note he told him that this note is forged, thereafter the manager Shivhare informed the police about the same. He admitted his signatures on police report (Ex-P/5) on A to A part of the same. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted that he sits in the wine shop and lot of persons come to take liquor but he does not pay attention as to who is taking liquor. He also did not identify the appellants before the learned Trial Court. He admitted this suggestion of defence that on the date of incident, whether any incident took place or not he does not know. 5 10. Mohan Lal Sarthi (PW-5) has not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of prosecution. 11. As per seizure memo (Ex-P/2), note was seized from the appellant Nityanand. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Umashanker (supra) held in paras 6, 7 & 8 as under:- “6. The conviction of the appellant by the trial court as confirmed by the High Court is under Section 489B and Section 489C of I.P.C., which read as under:- "489-B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.- Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 489-C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank-notes.- Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." 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 6 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.” 13. In light of the above, it is clear that in the present case also, no material has been brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellants had the requisite mens rea. As per prosecution vide seizure memo (Ex-P/2), though note was seized from the appellant Nityanand but the same has not been corroborated by the prosecution witnesses, as the important 7 prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution and have turned hostile. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 489-B read with Section 34 of IPC. 15. The appellant No.2 is reported to be on bail, whereas the appellant No.1 has died during pendency of the appeal. 16. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant No.2 is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- 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. 17. 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