High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Mere Possession of Counterfeit Currency Insufficient Without Proving Mens Rea: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court upholds trial court’s decision, emphasizing the necessity of proving knowledge and intent in counterfeit currency offenses.

The Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of Himatlal Bhailal Rajgor and others in a case involving the possession and trafficking of counterfeit currency notes, as well as impersonation of police officers. The bench, comprising Justices Nirzar S. Desai and Hasmukh D. Suthar, emphasized the prosecution’s failure to prove mens rea (criminal intent) and conscious possession of the counterfeit notes, which are critical elements for conviction under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On June 8, 1992, intelligence received by PSI R.G. Rathod of Kutch-Bhuj led to raids on the residences of the accused, resulting in the recovery of counterfeit US dollars. The accused were charged under Sections 489(A), 489(B), 489(C), 489(D), 34, 171 read with Section 114 of the IPC for possessing and trafficking counterfeit currency and impersonating police officers. The trial court acquitted the accused in 1998, a decision now upheld by the High Court.

Credibility of Evidence: The High Court scrutinized the evidence presented by the prosecution, noting significant shortcomings. “The prosecution failed to prove that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the currency notes were counterfeit,” the court remarked. The defense argued that the investigation lacked impartiality, with critical witnesses turning hostile and the evidence being insufficient to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mens Rea and Conscious Possession: The bench reiterated the necessity of proving mens rea in offenses involving counterfeit currency. “Mere possession of counterfeit currency is not sufficient for conviction under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) IPC without proving mens rea,” the court stated. The prosecution could not establish that the accused knowingly possessed or trafficked counterfeit notes. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar emphasized, “The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit.”

Impersonation of Police Officers: Addressing the charges of impersonation under Section 171 IPC, the court found no evidence to substantiate the claim. “Merely finding khaki dresses was insufficient to prove the offense of impersonation,” the judgment noted, highlighting the lack of any concrete evidence that the accused pretended to be police officers.

The court’s judgment underscored the principles of evaluating evidence in criminal cases. Referring to established precedents, the bench highlighted that the presumption of innocence must be maintained unless the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court cited several cases, including Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing the importance of a thorough and impartial investigation.

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar remarked, “In the absence of any evidence proving the mens rea and conscious possession of counterfeit currency, the prosecution’s case falls short. The presumption of innocence stands strong, and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”

The Gujarat High Court’s decision to uphold the acquittal in this counterfeit currency case highlights the judiciary’s adherence to the principles of criminal justice, particularly the necessity of proving mens rea and conscious possession. This judgment reinforces the legal standards required for conviction in cases involving counterfeit currency and impersonation. By affirming the trial court’s decision, the High Court sends a clear message about the rigorous proof needed to establish guilt in such serious offenses.

Date of Decision: 21st May 2024

State of Gujarat v. Himatlal Bhailal Rajgor & Ors.

Similar News