SYED ABBAS MEHDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case for the prosecution is that the petitioner had in his possession Indian currency notes having face value of Rs.20,000/-. This counterfeit currency was in the denomination of thousand rupee notes. The petitioner alongwith other family members came to India and they were staying at the same place. The other family members have been granted bail as only the offence under Section 489-C has allegedly been made out against them. The offence under Section 489-C being a bailable offence, the other co-accused have already been granted bail by the order dated 16.02.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the further allegation is that he was apprehended near a shop where he was said to be about to purchase a bag using a counterfeit currency note of the denomination of thousand rupee.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the prosecution the case of the present petitioner is different from the co-accused inasmuch as the co-accused did not use any of the counterfeit currency notes whereas the present petitioner was about to purchase the said bag. He submitted that in the present case the offence under section 489B is involved and the same is a non-bailable offence. He then referred to Section 489B which reads 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.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the use of the counterfeit notes is not made out even if the entire prosecution case is to be believed. He submitted that the counterfeit note was in the hand of the petitioner and had not been handed over to the shopkeeper. The transaction of sale as such was not completed and, therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said that the petitioner had used the said counterfeit note as genuine. In these circumstances, he submits that the case of the present petitioner would also fall in the same category as that of the co-accused who have already been granted bail.