Allowed

K. Lalbiaktluangi v. State of Mizoram and Anr.

Gauhati HC23 Jun 2022Crl.A./1/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an appeal against conviction under Section 489C IPC for possession of fake currency notes. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove mensrea or that the appellant knowingly possessed counterfeit notes intended for genuine use, entitling her to the benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned Judgment & Order dated 12.11.2020 and the subsequent Order dated 16.11.2020.

K. Lalbiaktluangi Vs State of Mizoram and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/10

¶2

GAHC030000462021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.A./1/2021

¶5

K. Lalbiaktluangi W/o Lalremruata R/o Chhinga Veng, Aizawl

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Mizoram and Anr. Aizawl, Mizoram

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr J C Lalnunsanga

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : Mrs. Linda L Fambawl (Addl.PP, Mizoram)

¶10

BEFORE

¶11

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 23-06-2022

¶14

Heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents.

¶15

2] This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, wherein, the appellant was convicted under Section 489 C IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 (three) months S.I with a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh,in default S.I for another 1 (one) year in its Order dated 16.11.2020.

¶16

Page No.# 2/10

¶17

3] Brief facts of the case leading to this appeal is that on 28.11.2016, 52 (fifty two) Nos. of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) of Rs. 1,000/- denominations worth Rs. 52,000/- was recovered and seized from the possession of the accused/appellant Smt. K. Lalbiaktluangi in the office of Transport Department, Chaltlang and in the presence of reliable witnesses. Another 278 (two hundred and seventy eight) Nos. of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) of Rs. 1000 denominations worth Rs. 5,78,000/was recovered and seized from the possession of the co-accused Mr. C. Laltlanmawia at Chhinga Veng, Aizawl in the presence of reliable witnesses. On interrogation of the accused Mr. C. Laltlanmawia he was found to be the owner of seized Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN), another accused Mr. Lairothanga was also arrested and prosecuted accordingly. In the course of the investigation, the statements of the witnesses was recorded and the FSL report regarding the seized currency notes was also received and it was found that the notes were found not genuine Indian Currency notes but counterfeit. Accordingly the appellant along with the co- accused were sent for trial u/s 489 C IPC. Thereafter, the learned trail court framed charge under section 489C IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and asked for trial.

¶18

4] The prosecution examine as many as 6 (six) prosecution witnesses and 1 (one) defence witness was examined. The appellant on examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, denied the allegation made against her by explaining that she had received the Fake Indian Currency Notes from a lady named Mangi who had given her the money in an envelope which she was in turn suppose to give to a lady named Dinthari who had wanted to take a loan of Rs.50,000/- with interest. The appellant also stated that the money which was seized from her possession was fake but at the time it was seized she had no knowledge that it was fake.

¶19

5] Having considered the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court passed its Judgment & Order dated 12.11.2020, the appellant u/s 489C IPC convict sentencing

¶20

Page No.# 3/10

¶21

the appellant to undergo 3 (three) months S.I with a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh, i.d. S.I for another 1 (one) year on 16.11.2020. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed.

¶22

6] Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant under Section 489 C IPC should be set aside since no mensrea has been proved by the prosecution and on reading of Section 489 ‘C’ IPC it provides that besides possession mensrea is the main ingredient that is required to be proved. That possession is not important unless mensrea has been proved. In support of his point, he has cited the judgment of the Apex Court in Umashanker Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , reported in (2001) 9 SCC 642, paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 and this Court’s judgment in Crl.A. No. 50/2019 dated 05.04.2022, paragraph No. 17.

¶23

7] Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the appellant has explained that the Judgment & Order was passed on 12.11.2020, which is during the peak Covid period and the appellant could not take necessary steps in the trial of the case due to Covid and also due to the shifting/transfer of the Trial Court. She could not get the chance to have the evidence of her defence witness recorded in the Court and that since she had changed her defence counsel, there was miscommunication and she was not informed of the Court dates, wherein she has been recorded as being absent by the trial court during the later part of the trial.

¶24

8] The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the statements made by the PWs against the appellant is only what they know through hearsay. PW-4 and PW-5 are the seizure witnesses, who were informed by the Police that they had seized the Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) from the appellant, thus, what they know is only through hearsay. PW-7, who is the case I.O. himself, has supported what was

¶25

Page No.# 4/10

¶26

stated by the appellant in her examination under Section 313 Cr.PC saying that:

¶27

“K. Lalbiaktluangi said that one of her friends had wanted to take a loan and had placed her Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) as security for it. K. Lalbiaktluangi had kept the LSC with one Mangi who had given her the fake 52 Nos. of Rs. 1,000/- denomination notes as a loan.”

¶28

Thus, the Prosecution has failed to prove that there was mensrea and the appellant knew that the Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN), which were seized from her were Fake Currency Notes.

¶29

9] Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the information regarding the Fake Currency Notes was given from civil source and from the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that the seized Fake Currency Notes amounting to Rs. 25,000/- was seized from the possession of the appellant and that from the examination of the accused C.Laltlanmawia under Section 313 Cr.PC, he had mentioned that Lairotluanga’s wife had send him the money to be handed over to the appellant/K.Lalbiaktluangi at Chhinga Veng. This clearly shows that the appellant knew the co-accused C.Laltlanmawia from whom 278 numbers of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) of Rs. 1,000/- denominations worth Rs. 52,000/- were seized and kept in a black polythene when it was seized, which clearly indicates that he knew that Indian Currency Notes (FICN) were false.

¶30

10] The involvement of the appellant is thus clear from the statement of this accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC. The appellant could also not give any details of the person she mentioned as “Mangi” from whom she has stated to receive the Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN), which gives doubt whether such as a person as “Mangi” really exists. The prosecution sanction dated 23.03.2017 in

¶31

Page No.# 5/10

¶32

paragraph No. 1 also clearly mentioned that the appellant was found in possession of 52 (fifty two) Nos. of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) of Rs. 1,000/- denominations worth Rs. 52,000/- while trying to exchange it from registration fees at her office, i.e., Transport Department, Chaltlang, Aizawl.

¶33

11] The evidence of the case I.O. also shows that on his cross examination, the appellant had tried to exchange the Fake Indian Currency Notes with genuine notes received at the Transport Department as fees, taxes etc. Thus, from the evidence, it is clear that the appellant was caught not only in possession of the Fake Indian Currency Notes but mensrea has also been proved since she had tried to exchange the Fake Indian Currency Notes with the genuine notes received in the Transport Department. That the appellant has been sentenced for only 3 (three) months, which has already been served by her and thus, she is not aggrieved by the sentence imposed against her but has come to this Court on appeal only to get her job back.

¶34

12. From the submissions made by the learned counsels representing both the parties, the evidence adduced and documents on record is duly examined. The appellant is charged under 489-C IPC, thus, prosecution evidence adduce in the Court is scrutinized herein to examine whether the appellant knew that the said Currency notes were actually fake currency notes in view of Section 489-C IPC which is reproduced herein :

¶35

“ Possession offorged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank

¶36

notes.- Whoever has in his possession 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

Page No.# 6/10

¶38

The Apex Court in Umashanker Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra) states that :

¶39

“8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mensrea of offences under Sections 489-Band 489-Cis, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or banknotes are forged or counterfeit". Without the afore-mentioned mensrea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489-B IPC. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489-Cin the absence of the mensrea, noted above. “

¶40

In light of the above the observation of the apex court the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses is meticulously examined.

¶41

13] PW1 F. Lalrinsanga is the seizing officer and he has deposed how on 28.11.2016, he received information that one lady/ the appellant, possessed fake currency notes and she knowingly was trying to use it for registration fees in the Transport Department at Chaltlang. He along with his party rushed to the spot at Chaltlang and seized 52nos. of fake currency notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination from the possession of the appellant. On interrogation she stated that she has received the notes from one C. Laltlanmawia and that he was having a huge amount of Fake Indian Currency notes (FICN). Accordingly the said person was searched for and he was found at New Market and was taken to one shop viz Siakeng Tailoring T.S Market, Chhinga Veng. In the shop the black polythene possessed by him was checked in the presence of two reliable witnesses and found 278 notes of Fake Currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination worth Rs, 2,78,000/-. On interrogation, C. Latlanmawia stated that he got the FICN from one Lairothanga. The same day Lairothanga was found and he stated that he got the FICN from one non Mizo. The enquiry report was thus

¶42

Page No.# 7/10

¶43

submitted and a case P.S case No.442/16 dated 28.11.2016 u/s 489B/489C/34 IPC was registered against the three accused which included the appellant. During cross examination he has admitted that the appellant had received the seized article from one Mangi and the accused C.Laltlanmawia, but the said Mangi could not be arrested since her address was not known.

¶44

14] The evidence of PW1 thus pertains to the recovery of the Fake Indian Currency Notes from the appellant and accused C.Laltlanmawia. Pw1 has not made any mention whether the appellant had tried to use the said seized FICN knowing them to be fake. In this regards, the appellant in her examination under section 313 Cr.P.C has explained how the sized FICN had come into her possession by stating that“

¶45

”A lady namely Dinthari had wanted to take a loan of Rs. 50,000/and she asked me to find somebody who would be willing to lend her money on interest with a land certificate as security. I came to know Mangi through my friend Mabiaki and she said that she would be able to arrange the money. Mangi arrived in the office in the morning of 18.11.2016 carrying the money in an envelope. I did not know that the envelope contained fake currency. I took it up to hand it over to a person who Dinthari had sent to collect the money but before I reached the gate where the person was waiting, I was apprehended by some CID personnel. Three of us were arrested in connection with the cash I was carrying in the envelope and we were taken to Aizawl PS. I do not know about the notes being exhibited in Court.”

¶46

The appellant also stated that the money which was seized from her possession was fake but at the time it was seized, she had no knowledge that it was fake,

¶47

Page No.# 8/10

¶48

15] Pw2 and PW3 are the seizure witness of the seized 278 notes of Fake Currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination from the accused C.Laltlanmawia and have not made any mention of the seizure of the FICN from the appellant,

¶49

16] PW 4 and PW5 are the seizure witness to the seized 52 nos. of fake currency notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination from the possession of the appellant. Pw4 has however stated that while she was at the Chaltlang office the police came to her room told her that they had seized the currency from the appellant and had asked her to count the money, which she counted and found that it was 52 in nos. of 1000/ denomination. She then put her signature as a seizure witness. During cross examination she had mentioned that when she asked the appellant from where she got the money, the appellant stated that she got it from one of her friends and that she did not know it was fake. PW5 has also deposed that the police had called him to count the fake currency notes which they told him was seized from the appellant. Once he counted the notes which was 52 in number of Rs.1000/- denomination, he put his signature as a seizure witness. Thus neither of the seizure witnesses saw the S.A being actually seized from the possession of the appellant. From their deposition there is no evidence indicating that the appellant had possessed the FICN intending to use the counterfeit currency notes or banknotes .

¶50

17] Pw7 is the case I.O who has deposed that the FIR was filed by S.I F.Lalrinsanga, CID(SB), Aizawl who has stated that on 28.11.2016 based on the information received, he had seized 52 nos. of Rs.1000/- denomination fake currency notes from the appellant and on the same day seized 278 nos. of Rs. 1000 denomination notes from the possession of C. Laltlanmawia. The case was registered at the Aiawl P.S and endorsed to him for investigation. During investigation he had arrested the accused K.Lalbiaktlungi/appellant and the accused C. Laltlanmawia. On interrogation of C. Laltlanmawia it was revealed that the S.A was given to him by a

¶51

Page No.# 9/10

¶52

Lairothanga who was then apprehended who stated that the S/A was received from one Abita and that he was paid Rs, 2.80 lakhs for it. He had then handed over the S.A to C. Laltlanmawia, however since C. Laltlanmawia could not dispose all the notes he had given some of the notes to a Mangi out of which Mangi had given 52. nos. to the appellant/K.Lalbiaktluangi. K.Lalbiaktluangi stated that one of her friends wanted to take a loan and had placed her LSC as security which she kept with Mangi who had in turn given her the 52. Nos. of fake currency notes of Rs.1000 denomination. The said Mangi could not be traced during investigation as she could not be contacted in the given mobile number. Accordingly the seized notes were sent to FSL and were found to be fake, He found prima facie case against the accused Lairothanga u/s 489’B’ IPC, u/s 489’C’ IPC against the accused C.Laltlanmawia and u/s persons under section 489B/489C R/w 34 IPC against the appellant/K.Lalbiaktluangi. On cross examination he has admitted that it was not possible for a layman to distinguish the fake currency notes from the genuine notes. On cross examination he has also stated that the appellant had not tried to use or sell the fake notes but she had tried to exchange it with genuine notes received at the Transport department, I however find that this statement is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. The submission made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor sanction mentions the appellant was trying to exchange the FICN from the registration fees is only an allegation that was yet to be proved and does not hold weight.

¶53

18] From the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness it is see that though 52 nos. of 1000/ denomination fake currency notes was seized from the appellant there is no evidence that proves that the appellant was aware that the notes were faked and that she knowingly had tried to use them. The case IO himself admitted on cross examination that he could not make out whether the notes were fake or not and that it was not possible for a layman to distinguish the note from genuine currency. The case I.O has also appeared to accept the explanation given by the appellant as to

¶54

Page No.# 10/10

¶55

the circumstances which led to the Fake Indian Currency Notes being found in her possession.

¶56

19] Thus in view of the cited judgement of the Apex Court and from the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and also considering the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt, I am of the considered opinion that this appeal should be allowed and set aside the impugned Judgment &Order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, wherein, the appellant was convicted under Section 489 C IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 (three) months S.I with a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh, in default S.I for another 1 (one) year in its Order dated 16.11.2020.

¶57

20] Crl. A. No. 1 of 2021 thus stand allowed and disposed of.

¶58

Comparing Assistant

K. Lalbiaktluangi v. State of Mizoram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Lalbiaktluangi v. State of Mizoram and Anr.

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

Smt. C. Laltlanmawii Vs Sh. C. Lalhruaitluanga

Melody Lalrinawmi Vs R. Lalhriatpuia

Vanlalsawia Vs State of Mizoram

Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs Sh. Rohmingliana and 105 Ors.

Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs Sh. Rohmingliana and 105 Ors.

Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs Rohmingliana and 105 Ors.