Source: Gauhati High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Gauhati High Court in the matter of Dimbeswar Bobo v. The State of Assam, has held that without proving the mens rea, mere possession of the said counterfeit notes is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of Dimbeswar Bobo v. The State of Assam Case?

• In this case, the appellant was apprehended and was confined in the office room of Balijan Bazar Committee while he was purchasing goods in the market by giving some counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/.
• A case was registered against the appellant under Section 489B of IPC.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant under the said provision and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
• Thereafter, a criminal appeal was filed before the Gauhati High Court.
• The Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court had erred in arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the present appellant under Section 489B of IPC as no evidence had been laid to show that the appellant knew or had any reason to believe that the seized notes were forged or counterfeit.
• The impugned judgment of the Trial Court was set aside by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed that the prosecution side has failed to prove the essential ingredient regarding the mens rea of the present appellant necessary to constitute an offence under Section 489B of IPC.
• It was further held that without proving the mens rea, mere possession of the said counterfeit notes is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 489B of IPC.

What is Section 489B of IPC?

About:

• This Section deals with the using forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes as genuine.
• It states that 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.

Case Law:

• In the case of Uma Shankar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001), the Supreme Court held that the object of the legislature in enacting this provision 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 this provision is not meant to punish unwary possessors or users.