Allowed

Rajneesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2025CRA/94/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction appeal under Section 489-C IPC for possession of counterfeit currency. Complainant and seizure witnesses turned hostile and no final expert opinion proved forgery or mens rea; the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bonds to remain in force six months under Section 437A CrPC; no surrender required.

Rajneesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.02.18 13:16:28 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:7832

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 94 of 2007

¶7

Rajneesh Agrawal, aged about 27 years, S/o Late Shri Pooran Chand Agrawal, Ketka Road Surajpur, P.S. Surajpur, District-Surguja (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

13/02/2025

¶16

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2007 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Session Case No.522/2004 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:

¶17

Conviction	Sentence & Fine
U/s 489-C/34 of	RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default
IPC	thereof, 1 month additional RI.

¶18

¶19

In the impugned judgment in question, co-accused Baijnath alias Nandu Kashyap, Smt. Kiran Singh, Pawan Kumar Agarwal and Mohd. Hashim were acquitted of the charged offences by the trial Court.

¶20

As per the prosecution story, On 17.06.2004, Appellant Rajneesh Agarwal, along with co-accused Pawan Kumar Agarwal, attempted to use counterfeit 100 currency notes₹ at complainant Dinbandhu’s grocery shop. They purchased a 10 packet of biscuits and two Rajshree (gutkha) pouches₹ by handing over a 100 counterfeit note and received 90₹ ₹ in change. Upon suspecting the note to be counterfeit, the complainant questioned them, at which point they attempted to flee. Appellant Rajneesh Agarwal was apprehended by witnesses, while co-accused Pawan Agarwal managed to escape. Upon interrogation, Rajneesh revealed that the counterfeit notes had been given to him by Mohammad Hashim, a resident of Surajpur, for circulation. Complainant Dinbandhu lodged a report (Ex.P-1) at Jaynagar Police Station and handed over the counterfeit note bearing serial number 1A S 223343 to the police, which was seized vide Ex.P-2. Another counterfeit 100₹ note with serial number 3BE 298293 was seized from Appellant Rajneesh Agarwal vide Ex.P-3. The seized counterfeit notes were sent by the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, to the Currency Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur, for examination. Expert S.G. Thapodkar (PW-8) examined the notes and, in his report (Ex.P-11), confirmed that the notes were counterfeit. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

¶21

So as to hold the Appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. The statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he

¶22

¶23

denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶24

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2007, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellant is innocent and has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court. He further submits that the complainant of the case and the seizure witness have not supported the case of prosecution. The statement of treasurer S.G. Thapodkar and his report is not reliable as he was not authorized to give final opinion. There is no final opinion available on record by the Note Press, Dewas or Nasik. He lastly submits that there is no case made out against the Appellant, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be set-aside and the Appellant may be acquitted.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

¶28

The conviction of the appellant Rajnish Agarwal is basically based on two evidences. The first basis is that according to the First Information Report (Exhibit P-1), the complainant Dinbandhu (PW-1) caught him with a fake note and handed him over to the police and the second basis is that on the second day of the report dated 17/06/2004, dated 18/06/2004, the police seized a fake note of Rs. 100 from the appellant and prepared Exhibit P-3. It is worth

¶29

¶30

mentioning that the seizure action has stated to have been done by Assistant Sub-Inspector Yuvraj Singh (PW-14) as the investigating officer of the case. The seizure has not been supported by the complainant Dinbandhu (PW-1) and seizure witness Sanyasi Bairagi (PW-2), rather they have been turned hostile. According to the prosecution case, the question also arises that if the appellant was caught by the complainant’s party and handed over to the police on 17/06/2004, then when, how and under what circumstances the seizure of the alleged fake note of Rs. 100/- was not made on that day but on the next day, i.e. 18/06/2004. Since the said seizure has not been supported by the complainant Dinbandhu (PW-1) and Sanyasi Bairagi (PW-2), therefore the said seizure becomes completely suspicious.

¶31

It is an important fact that the complainant Dinbandhu (PW-1) himself has denied identifying the appellant. He has also denied the fact of filing a police report. Thus, whether the alleged fake note was given to him by the appellant or whether the appellant attempted to circulate the fake note is not established from the statements of the complainant Dinbandhu (PW-1) and Sanyasi Bairagi (PW-2) themselves.

¶32

It is also an important fact that in the case at hand, the alleged note was sent to Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur branch for examination and the Treasurer S.G. Thapodkar (PW-8) has given a report Exhibit P-11 stating that after examining the notes seized from the appellant as well as other seized notes, he has declared that the note Article-A seized from the appellant was also forged. But in crossexamination he has admitted that he is not authorized to give final opinion and he had asked for final opinion regarding the forgery of the notes from Note Press, Dewas or

¶33

¶34

Nasik. But no final report of Note Press, Dewas or Nasik brought on record. Thus, it could not be duly established by the prosecution beyond doubt that the alleged note of Article-A was forged.

¶35

In this case, the offence under section 489C. of the Indian Penal Code has been provided as under:-

¶36

“489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes- Whoever has in his possessions 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.”

¶37

13.According to the above provision, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the Appellant knew or he had knowledge to believe that the alleged note was forged but still he kept it in his possession with the intention of using it as genuine. In this regard, in the matter of Umashanker v. State of CG, 2001 AIR SCW 4050, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8 determined as follows:-

¶38

“8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Section 489B and 489-C 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 489-B 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 PW 2, PW 4 and PW 7 that they were able to make out that currency note alleged to have been given to PW 4, was fake "presumed" such a mens rea.

¶39

¶40

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-notes being fake or 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 489-B and 489-C are not proved. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Sections 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charges.

¶41

14.In the light of the aforesaid provisions and precedents, there is no evidence produced by the prosecution to hold that the appellant knew or had reason to believe that the said note was forged and was in possession of the same for using it as genuine.

¶42

15.On the basis of the above evidence, this Court finds that there is lack of sufficient, clear and convincing evidence to convict the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is not found to be sustainable.

¶43

16.Therefore the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquitted.

¶44

17.The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437A of the CrPC.

¶45

Let a certif i ed copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶46

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶47

Shubham

Rajneesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premsingh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chakradhari Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suklal @ Sukhlal Tandon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar @ Bhopali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deleted (Lakhan) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Anchal Vs State of Chhattisgarh