BALRAJ (BALRAJ SINGH) Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge here is to the patently unwarranted and wholly unsustainable conviction of the appellant-Balraj Singh, for offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. The case against the appellant being that he had, in his possession, a counterfeit Rs. 100/- currency note, which he tried to use as genuine by seeking to exchange it at the Bank for notes of smaller denomination.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution and this is not disputed by the appellant, on June 17, 1983, the appellant-Balraj Singh went to the Punjab and Sind Bank, Panipat and handed over a currency note of Rs. 100/- to the Cashier and asked for Rs. 10/- currency notes to be given to him in exchange. The Cashier PW 4, Iqbal Singh, on examining the note, suspected it to be counterfeit and he accordingly took it to the Bank Manager PW 2 Amarjit Singh Bindra who shared this suspicion. The currency note was then taken into possession and the matter was reported to the police where a case was registered. The currency note in question was sent to the Reserve Bank for expert opinion. It was opined by the Reserve Bank that the currency note was indeed counterfeit.

(3.) IN dealing with offences under Section 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, it is to be appreciated that mere possession or use of a forged or counterfeit currency note cannot by itself fasten criminal liability. There is another essential ingredient which must be proved before guilt can be established, namely, that the possession or use of the forged or counterfeit currency note was with the knowledge that it was so forged or counterfeit or at any rate, it must be shown by the prosecution that the accused had reason to believe that the said currency note was forged of counterfeit. This aspect of the matter appears to have been wholly ignored by the trial court. It is pertinent to note in this behalf that the currency note in question, even as per the Bank Manager, PW 2 Amarjit Singh Bindra, was such that to a layman it would appear to be genuine. This witness, in fact, added that only an expert-eye could detect it to be forged or counterfeit. Not only this, it appears that even the investigating officer, P.W. 6 ASI Bhagwan Dass entertained some doubt about the currency note being counterfeit as he deposed that he did not arrest the appellant when the case was registered against him as he considered it proper to arrest him only after getting the opinion of the Reserve Bank of India with regard to the currency note.