Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010185402026 2026:GAU-AS:12688 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1217/2026 SHRI BUDHI SAMBYO S/O SHRI BUDHI JARBO,R/O HONG VILLAGE, P.O. AND P.S. ZIRO, DISTRICT LOWER SUBANSIRI, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PIN- 791110 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SRI MOHAN RABHA ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR JORABAT OUT POST P.S. BASISTHA JORABAT DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN) ASSAM PIN- 78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P D NAIR, S RANA,MR G ALAM,DR. S R A NASER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 02.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application under Section 528 read with Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, Page No.# 2/7 2023, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 02.06.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, by which charges are framed against the petitioner under Section 489 (C) of the IPC, 1860, in Sessions Case No. 236/2025. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that an FIR was lodged on 01.11.2022, by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Jorabat Outpost, Basistha, stating inter alia, that while he along with other Police staff were patrolling in the 9th Mile area under Jorabat Outpost, they found the petitioner waiting at around 04:30 am in front of 9th Mile Garubazar, on the side of the Highway and on raising suspicion, the Police personnel searched the articles that he was carrying and found an electric machine used for printing fake currency notes, two printed fake currency notes, one leather bag and cash of Rs. 2 lacs inside the leather bag as well as Rs. 35,000/- from his pocket, along with mobile, driving licence and other documents. The Police personnel had seized the articles in presence of the witnesses at the place of the incident and prepared a seizure memo and apprehended the petitioner. It is also stated in the FIR that the petitioner had, in his defence stated that another person was with him, who had made the transaction and left the place by dropping him from the vehicle. The Police, thereafter, registered the case as Basistha PS Case No. 952 of 2022, and on completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet on 17.11.2022. Thereafter, on completion of the necessary procedures, the sessions case was registered as Sessions Case No. 236/2025 and the case was taken up for framing of Page No.# 3/7 charge on 02.06.2026. The Sessions Court, heard the argument made by the learned Public Prosecutor and also heard the counsel for the accused person. The learned Trial Court had further considered the FSL report as well as other documents, including the statements of the witnesses and accused recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. The learned Trial Court had observed that to attract the offence under Section 489 (C) of the IPC, the mens rea is required, i.e., to the effect that a person in whose possession, the fake currency notes are found should have the knowledge that the same were fake currencies and with the knowledge he intends to use the same as genuine and that he had in fact, used those as genuine. The learned Court had stated that the intention has to be gathered from various facts and circumstances of the case and reading the mind is not always possible. However, it was observed that possession of the notes along with the machine and possession of large amount of currency notes without any explanation, prima facie shows sufficient intention required under Section 489(C) of the IPC. It was also observed that the said intention can be proved during the trial of the case. As such, on such findings, charge is framed against the petitioner under Section 489(C) of the IPC. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that upon examination by the Scientific Officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory, it was found that the currency notes which were stated to be fake are actually fake, but it was also found that the machine which was seized cannot be used for printing currency notes. He has also relied on the findings reflected in the FSL, Report, wherein it was stated that the papers which Page No.# 4/7 were found stored inside the box can also not be used for printing notes, as the said papers are ordinary pieces of papers. He, as such,, submits that the petitioner, at best, can be stated to have possessed fake currency notes and possession of fake currency notes is itself not the offence under Section 489 (C) of the IPC. He submits that the knowledge has to be there, on the part of the petitioner that the same were fake notes and he intends to use the same, which, however, according to him, are missing in the instant case. As such, he submits that no offence under Section 489 (C) is attracted in the case with regard to the petitioner. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments to exemplify the issue that possession of fake currency notes is not only the criteria for attracting the offence under Section 489 (C) IPC, but also the requisite knowledge and the intention to use the said notes by the accused person. The decisions are:- i) Bur Singh -Vs- The Crown; reported in 1930 SCC OnLine Lah 61. ii) Ajmal Hussain Mazarbhuiya -vs- State of Mizoram; reported in (2024) SCC Online Gau 1653. iii) Jafur Uddin Choudhury -vs- State of Assam; reported in (2017) 3 GLR 79. iv) Kiron Borgohain -vs- State of Assam; reported in (2011) 3 GLR 618. v) Union of India -vs- Prafulla Kumar Samal; reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4. Page No.# 5/7 6. Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the intention, i.e., mens rea or the knowledge will be seen during the trial of the offence and as far as during the stage of framing of charge is concerned, he submits that the same is only on a prima facie view and the same has been established in the case, in view of the fact that the petitioner was found not only with the possession of the fake notes, but also with a machine, which can be used for printing of fake notes. 7. I have gone through the submissions and I have gone through the records. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhawna Bai vs. Ghanshyam; reported in (2020) 2 SCC 217, has held as follows:- 13. Though the circumstances alleged in the charge-sheet are to be established during the trial by adducing the evidence, the allegations in the charge-sheet show a prima facie case against the accused-Respondents 1 and 2. The circumstances alleged by the prosecution indicate that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen." 9. Under Section 227 of the CrPC, it is provided that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused person, he shall discharge the Page No.# 6/7 accused and record his reasons for doing so. However, if on consideration and hearing, the Judge is of the opinion that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the said Judge would frame a charge under Clause (b) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 228 CrPC and the same would be read and explained to the accused. It is a settled position of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the Judge must review the Police report as well the documents submitted therewith to see if there is enough ground or suspicion to presume that the accused person has committed the offence. The requirement as such, is that the Judge will consider the Police papers and would also consider the submissions made by the accused person and the prosecution and if he thinks that grounds for presuming are there with regard to the accused person committing the offence, he will frame charge and it is only on prima facie examination of the case. In the said stage, the Judge will not go deeper into the matter to find out that the offence has been committed by the accused person. In the instant case, the accused person, i.e., the petitioner was found in possession of the fake currency notes along with a printing machine, as well as papers inside a box. Although in the FSL report, it was reflected that the said printing machine cannot print real currency notes and that the papers contained in the box are also ordinary papers, but here is a case of fake currency notes and for printing fake notes, the said machine and papers can always be used. However, the knowledge as to whether the two notes possessed by him were known to the petitioner or whether he had the intention to use those notes, should be seen during the trial. At the stage of framing of charge, only a prima facie opinion is required and the Page No.# 7/7 possession of such articles by the petitioner raises the presumption for the offence. 10. With this observation, this petition is dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant