Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code for possession of counterfeit currency but modified the sentence. While the trial court had imposed three years’ simple imprisonment with fine, the High Court reduced the sentence to six months’ simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 each, citing mitigating circumstances such as the age of the accused and the 17-year-old nature of the incident.
Facts
The prosecution case began with a secret tip-off received on 31st July 2008, when police officials patrolling near Fatehpuri Masjid, Chandni Chowk, were informed that a young man and woman were engaged in selling counterfeit notes near Backar Watch Company. The raiding party apprehended the appellants, recovering 12 fake ₹500 notes from one accused’s trouser pocket and 8 fake ₹500 notes from the woman’s purse. These were sealed, sent to the Currency Note Press (CNP), Nashik, and confirmed as counterfeit.
The appellants were charged under Section 489C IPC, denied the allegations, claimed false implication, and argued the notes were planted. Despite their defence witness supporting this claim, the trial court convicted them in 2012, leading to this appeal.
Issues
- Whether reliance solely on police witnesses, in the absence of public witnesses, could justify conviction.
- Whether discrepancies in the handling of seized currency (number of pullandas) weakened the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the prosecution established the mens rea required under Section 489C IPC, i.e., knowledge or intent to use counterfeit notes as genuine.
- Whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate given the passage of time and circumstances
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants contended that the recovery was fabricated and the notes planted. They stressed that no public witness was part of the raid despite being in a crowded area. They further argued that all witnesses were police officials, making them “interested witnesses” whose testimony should not be accepted without corroboration. They highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, especially regarding how many sealed packets (pullandas) were sent to CNP. They also argued that in the absence of mens rea, mere possession should not result in conviction. They requested acquittal or, alternatively, leniency in sentencing.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution countered that the police acted swiftly on credible information, and the seizure of counterfeit notes was duly documented and proved by multiple officers. They emphasized that non-involvement of public witnesses does not nullify official testimony if found reliable. They relied on the CNP report confirming the notes were counterfeit and argued that denial by the accused, without explanation of possession, showed guilty knowledge. Thus, the conviction should stand.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 489C IPC, which punishes possession of counterfeit notes when accompanied by knowledge or intent to use them as genuine. It stressed that knowledge and intent can be inferred from circumstances, especially where the accused denies recovery and fails to explain possession.
It also discussed Section 106 of the Evidence Act, holding that once prosecution proves possession, the burden shifts to the accused to explain facts within their special knowledge. Here, the appellants gave no plausible explanation.
Precedent Analysis
- Kalpnath Rai v. State (1997) 8 SCC 732 – The Supreme Court held that evidence of police officials cannot be discarded solely for want of independent witnesses, but must be scrutinized carefully. The High Court applied this principle, finding the police testimony trustworthy.
- Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255 – Cited on the importance of public witnesses, but clarified that absence does not automatically discredit prosecution.
- V.K. Jain v. CBI, 2015 (3) JCC 1944 – Clarified that mere possession of counterfeit notes with knowledge suffices for conviction, and that denial without explanation indicates guilty knowledge. This case was heavily relied upon to uphold the conviction.
These precedents strengthened the prosecution’s case and validated reliance on official witnesses
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that both raiding officers (PW-4 and PW-10) corroborated each other on the recovery of counterfeit notes. Cross-examination did not reveal inconsistencies sufficient to discredit them. The discrepancy regarding pullandas was clarified by entries in police records, proving that two sealed parcels were indeed sent to CNP.
On the defence claim that the accused were picked from home, the Court found this an afterthought, as no such suggestion was put to prosecution witnesses.
On mens rea, the Court reasoned that since the accused denied recovery outright without explaining possession, knowledge and intent were inferable. Thus, all elements of Section 489C IPC were satisfied.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 489C IPC, holding that possession of counterfeit currency, without explanation, demonstrated guilty knowledge and intent. However, considering mitigating factors—such as the long passage of 17 years since the incident, the age of the appellants (39 and 68 years), and the disproportionate impact of a long sentence—the Court modified the punishment to six months’ simple imprisonment with fine.
The appeal was partly allowed by reducing the sentence but not setting aside the conviction.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that official testimony of police officers, if credible, is sufficient for conviction even without public witnesses. It clarifies that denial of recovery without explanation strengthens inference of guilty knowledge under Section 489C IPC.
At the same time, the Court displayed sensitivity to the passage of time and proportionality in sentencing, emphasizing that justice requires balancing deterrence with compassion. The ruling signals that while counterfeit currency offences will not be excused, courts may temper punishment with leniency in old cases involving aged or reformed convicts.
FAQs
Q1. Can conviction under Section 489C IPC be based solely on police witnesses without public witnesses?
Yes. The Court held that police testimony cannot be discarded merely for lack of public witnesses if it is otherwise credible and consistent.
Q2. Does mere possession of counterfeit currency lead to conviction under Section 489C IPC?
Yes, if the accused fails to explain possession. The Court held that denial without explanation shows guilty knowledge and intent, fulfilling the offence’s requirements.
Q3. Why did the Court reduce the sentence despite upholding the conviction?
The Court considered the 17-year-old nature of the incident, the age of the appellants, and the principle of proportionality, holding that six months’ imprisonment with fine would serve justice.
