CRR No. 999 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 999 of 2010 Date of decision:27.09.2011 Darbara Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.P.S.Hundal, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Ravinderjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Vishal Munjal , Addl.AG, Punjab ***** Augustine George Masih J. (Oral) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the ingredients as contained in Section 489 (b) and 489 (c) of Indian Penal Code are not fulfilled for framing the charge as there is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner was in the knowledge of the fact that the currency notes which were recovered from him were forged or counterfeit. He contends that charge which has been framed by the trial Court vide order dated 22.02.2010, therefore, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and the present revision petition allowed. Counsel for the State has not been able to show from the record or even from the copy of the challan which he has placed on record today that something in the evidence has been collected which would indicate that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the currency notes were forged or counterfeit and/or that the same was intended to be used as genuine. CRR No. 999 of 2010 2 Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Saiyyad Iftikhar Hussain v. State of Punjab, (P & H) 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 487 in support of his contention. From a perusal of the impugned order, framing the charge against the petitioner, it does not appear to be even the consideration which has been given by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Moga in his order dated 22.02.2010 that the petitioner had any knowledge or had reason to believe that the currency notes which were recovered from his possession were forged or counterfeit and he also intended to use them as genuine. In the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Saiyyad Iftikhar Hussain (Supra), the prayer made in the present petition is allowed. The charges framed against the petitioner by the trial Court vide order dated 22.02.2010 cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Moga may again consider the application of the petitioner for discharge, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 22.02.2010, afresh keeping in view the requirements of Section 489 I.P.C. and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 27.09.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) sailesh JUDGE