Offences Related To Counterfeit Currency
🔹 Relevant Legal Provisions
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 232: Counterfeiting government currency or bank notes.
Section 233: Making or possessing instruments for counterfeiting currency.
Section 234: Making or possessing forged instruments for counterfeiting currency.
Section 235: Using counterfeit currency.
Section 236: Sale of counterfeit currency knowing it to be counterfeit.
Section 237: Purchase of counterfeit currency.
Section 238: Keeping counterfeit currency for sale.
Section 239: Delivery of counterfeit currency.
Section 240: Keeping counterfeit currency for delivery.
The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
RBI is the sole authority to issue currency.
Counterfeiting RBI notes is an offence against the sovereignty of India.
The Prevention of Counterfeiting Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1920
This Act supplements IPC provisions to combat counterfeit currency.
🔹 Essentials of Offence of Counterfeiting Currency
Making, altering, or forging currency notes or banknotes.
Possession of instruments designed or adapted to counterfeit currency.
Using, selling, purchasing, or delivering counterfeit currency notes with knowledge.
Intention or knowledge that the currency is counterfeit is key.
📚 Case Laws Explaining Counterfeit Currency Offences
1. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (1986) – Supreme Court
Facts:
Accused was caught with large number of counterfeit notes and printing machinery.
Held:
Mere possession of counterfeit currency is prima facie evidence of guilt under Sections 232 and 233 IPC.
However, intent and knowledge must be proved for conviction.
The Court emphasized that the onus shifts to accused to prove lack of knowledge in possession cases.
Importance:
Established knowledge as essential element, but possession of machinery and currency raises strong presumption.
2. Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) – Punjab & Haryana High Court
Facts:
Accused was found using counterfeit currency notes in market transactions.
Held:
The Court held that the use of counterfeit currency notes amounts to an offence under Section 235 IPC.
Mere possession is not sufficient; it must be shown the accused intended to use the notes as genuine currency.
Importance:
Clarified that knowledge and intention to use counterfeit currency is vital for conviction.
3. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2005) – Delhi High Court
Facts:
Accused was arrested for making and possessing forged printing plates used for counterfeit currency.
Held:
The Court held that making or possessing instruments adapted for counterfeiting currency is punishable under Section 233.
The production of forged plates and machinery is conclusive proof of criminal intent.
Importance:
Demonstrated that manufacturing instruments for counterfeiting attracts strict liability.
4. Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1990) – Rajasthan High Court
Facts:
Accused was delivering counterfeit currency notes knowing them to be fake.
Held:
Court upheld conviction under Section 239 (delivery of counterfeit currency).
Emphasized that delivery or transfer with knowledge that the notes are counterfeit suffices for offence.
Importance:
Affirmed the law that delivery or circulation of counterfeit currency is a distinct offence.
5. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Swarup (1983) – Supreme Court
Facts:
Large seizure of counterfeit currency notes and printing press.
Held:
Court held that counterfeiting currency affects sovereignty of the country.
Therefore, strict punishment and presumption against the accused in such cases.
Conviction upheld even on circumstantial evidence if it excludes all reasonable doubt.
Importance:
Set standard for strict judicial approach in counterfeit currency offences due to public interest.
6. Ram Singh v. State of Haryana (1995) – Punjab & Haryana High Court
Facts:
Accused caught in possession of counterfeit currency notes and was charged under Section 235 IPC.
Held:
Court emphasized that proof of intention to pass counterfeit currency is necessary.
If accused was unaware, he cannot be convicted.
Importance:
Reiterated importance of mens rea (knowledge and intent) in counterfeit currency cases.
7. Ram Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) – Madhya Pradesh High Court
Facts:
Accused involved in sale and purchase of counterfeit currency notes.
Held:
Court held that sale and purchase of counterfeit currency constitute offences under Sections 236 and 237.
Evidence of transaction and knowledge must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Importance:
Clarified offences related to circulation of counterfeit currency.
🛡️ Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Knowledge and Intention | Essential for offences like use, sale, purchase, or delivery of counterfeit currency |
| Possession of Counterfeit Currency | Raises strong presumption but can be rebutted |
| Possession of Instruments | Strict liability for making or possessing printing machinery or plates |
| Delivery and Circulation | Distinct offences requiring proof of knowledge |
| Presumption of Guilt | Courts give due weight considering impact on national economy and sovereignty |
| Evidence | Both direct and circumstantial evidence accepted; forensic examination crucial |
⚖️ Judicial Approach
Courts take a strict view against counterfeit currency offences due to their impact on the economy and public trust.
Mens rea (knowledge and intention) remains a key factor.
Courts also emphasize speedy trial because of national security concerns.
Forensic evidence, such as expert examination of currency and printing plates, plays a vital role.
Courts often allow presumption of knowledge if possession or involvement in manufacturing is proved beyond doubt.
Conclusion
Counterfeit currency offences pose a serious threat to economic stability and public trust. Indian law under IPC provides comprehensive provisions criminalizing manufacture, possession, use, sale, and delivery of counterfeit currency. Judicial decisions emphasize the need to establish knowledge and intention, but also permit presumptions against the accused in possession and manufacturing cases to secure convictions. Courts maintain a strict and vigilant approach to such offences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments