THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.907 of 2004 Date: 27.01.2011 Between: Yedla @ ranki Redy Gopala Krishna … Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep.by P.P. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.907 of 2004 ORDER: The revision is directed against the judgment of conviction in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Tanuku. Two persons faced trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Tanuku in S.C.No.53 of 1999 for the offence under Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) for using counterfeit currency as genuine currency. Both of them were convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. The Court imposed rigorous imprisonment for four years against each of them for the offence u/s.489-B IPC. Both the accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.28 of 2000. Through the impugned judgment, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tanuku dismissed the Criminal Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the first accused preferred the present revision petition. 2. Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner/A.1 contended that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the offence u/s.489-B IPC is not made out. He further contended that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted, the offence would nevertheless be not made out against the accused for want of mens rea. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.11.1997, at about 10 p.m. both the accused went to the fruits cart of PW.1 and purchased a dozen sweet oranges each. The cost of the dozen oranges was Rs.20/-. However, each of the accused offered a 100 rupee note towards the purchase. PW.1 suspected that the two accused were trying to circulate counterfeit currency. 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that PW.1 then quarrelled with the accused. The accused were allegedly beaten by neighbouring vendors and were ultimately handed over to PW.10, Sub-Inspector of Police, Town P.S., Tanuku. 5. The alleged counterfeit currency notes are offered by A.1 and A.2 to PW.1, which are MOs.1 and 2. MO.3 is said to be another 100 rupee counterfeit currency note found in the possession of A.1. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out that the currency notes under MOs.1 to 3 were not seized under the cover of any mediators report. On the other hand, it is the case of the prosecution that PW.1 handed over MOs.1 to 3 to PW.7 and that PW.7 received them. However, it cannot be said that PW.1 did not take MOs.1 to 3 from the possession of A.1 and A.2, merely because they were not seized by the police through any cover of mediators report. 6. The learned counsel for the accused, however, pointed out that the very genesis of the case is unnatural and does not appear reasonable. If a fruit vendor suspects the counterfeit currency note offered to him, he would decline to take the same and would ask the purchaser to give another currency note. In the present case, instead of doing so, PW.1 would appear to have quarrelled with the accused suspecting their bona fidies. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, this certainly is not the natural conduct of a fruit vendor. However, merely because the conduct of the fruit vendor was not natural, I am not prepared to hold that the prosecution story is false. 7. PWs.2, 3 and 4 are said to be eye witnesses for the incident proper. PWs.5 and 6 are also supposed to be eye witnesses for the incident proper. PWs.5 and 6 did not support the prosecution story. They were considered to be hostile. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross- examine them. So far as PWs.2 to 4 are concerned, the prosecution did not treat them as hostile. 8. It may be noticed that none of them were neighbouring business person of PW.1. PW.2 claimed that he was going home after selling fruits and noticed the incident. He was thus a chance witness. PW.3 also claimed that he was a fruit vendor. The same is the case with PW.4. PW.4 clearly stated that he heard that some fruit vendors went to the police station and that he also went to the police station. Thus, he was not aware about the incident proper. 9. PW.2 claimed that when he saw PW.1 quarrelling with the accused and the accused were beaten by others, he went to the scene of offence where the accused allegedly tried to pass off counterfeit currency. Same is the case with PW.3. Thus, neither PW.2 nor PW.3 witnessed the accused handing over MOs.1 to 3 to PW.1. Consequently, the solitary evidence of PW.1 remains to support the case of the prosecution that A.1 and A.2 tried to pass off MOs.1 and 2 as genuine currency. Indeed, there is no special motive for PW.1 to speak against the accused. At the same time, as already pointed out, the conduct of PW.1 as a fruit vendor is not natural. When he suspected that MOs.1 and 2 offered him were not genuine currency, he would naturally have demanded for another currency note rather than catching hold of A.1 and A.2 and beating them for offering the above notes. In the light of the above unnatural conduct of PW.1, it is not safe to record conviction on the basis of the solitary evidence of PW.1. On merits, it is therefore, a fit case where benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the accused and to acquit the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that MOs.1 to 3 were recovered from the possession of A.1 and A.2. 10. A far more important aspect was addressed by Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the accused. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out that Section 489-B IPC reads mens rea into the section. Unless a person having knowledge or having reson to believe that the currency used by him is counterfeit currency, such a person would not be guilty for the offence u/s.489-B IPC. In Umashankar v. state of Chhattisgarh[1], the Supreme Court held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence of possession or trafficking in faked currency notes punishable u/s.489-B IPC. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence that the accused were aware that MOs.1 to 3 are fake currency notes and that they were nevertheless dealing with the same. Thus, the knowledge of the accused regarding MOs.1 to 3 that they are fake currency notes is not made out by the prosecution. Once mens rea is not proved by the prosecution as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, even if the prosecution case is completely made out, the accused would still be entitled for acquittal. However, this is a case where it is not safe to convict the accused on the basis of the solitary testimony of PW.1. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused, much less beyond reasonable doubt. 11. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court erred in properly appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and more particularly erred in reading mens rea in the offence u/s.489-B IPC. The revision, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The first accused is found not guilty of the offence u/s.489-B IPC and is acquitted. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 27.01.2011 Isn [1] 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 717 (SC)