DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
2016-2017

INDIAN PENAL CODE-I

FINAL DRAFT
CASE COMMENTORY
UMA SHANKAR VS STATE OF CHATTISGARH
AIR 2001 SC 3074

SUBMITTED BY: UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

VAIBHAV VERMA MR. MALAY PANDEY

ROLL NO: 181 ASST. PROFF.(LAW)

SECTION ‘B’ Dr.RMLNLU.

B.A. LLB (Hons.), SEMESTER IV

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would take great pleasure in thanking my INDIAN PENAL CODE-I professor, MR. MALAY
PANDEY for his infallible support all through the course of this project. This endeavor would
not have been in its present shape had he not been there whenever I needed him. He has been a
constant source of support all the while.

Also I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the library staff for always helping me out with
finding excellent books and material almost every time I needed. They too have been a constant
support system in the completion of this project.

Last but surely not the least- I would like to thank my friends for their timely critical analysis of
my work and special feedback that worked towards the betterment of this work.

-VAIBHAV VERMA

2|Page
 INTRODUCTION

The appeal was made in the court against the judgement of high court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur. The case was tried under the section of 489A, 489B, 489C of IPC. The convict
sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment on each count, is in appeal from the judgment of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1992, allowing it in
part on November 11, 1999. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the
sentence from three years' rigorous imprisonment to two years' rigorous imprisonment under
Section 489-B and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 489-C.

FACTS

 The graveman charge against the appellant on 25th may, 1990 around 10p.m,he purchased
mango of 1kg costing Rs. 5 he paid a fake currency-note of Rs.100 to prosecuting
witness.4 who doubted its genuineness.
 She showed it to prosecuting witness 2 and 7 who also said that it was a fake currency-
note.
 He was handed over to police who recovered 13 more such fake currency-notes from
him.
 Further some papers, refills and different colours and scissors were also recovered from
his house. 
 On these facts charges were framed against him under Sections 489-A , 489-B and
489C of I.P.C.

3|Page
ISSUE INVOLVED:

 Whether the appellant comes under the section of 489A, 489B, 489C of IPC or not?

 Is mens rea is important to proof that appellant is come under this section or not?

LAW ON THE POINT:

 Section 489A of Indian Evidence Act.

 Section 489B of Indian Evidence Act.

 Section 489C of Indian Evidence Act.

4|Page
 DECISION OF THE COURT

This case was a nature of using of fake currency. A man was arrested and charged against the
various section of IPC. Police also recovered 13 more such fake currency-notes from him.
Further some papers, refills of different colours and scissors were also recovered from his house.

Mens rea of offences under section 489B and 489C is “ knowing or having reason to believe the
currency notes or bank notes are forged or counterfeit”. Without mens rea selling, buying or
receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or
counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section
489B of I.P.C. possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency-notes or
bank-notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489C in the absence of the mens
rea.

High court completely missed this aspect.

Without mens rea one cant be punished and it is not enough witness to proof that defendant is
guilt or he has guilty mind for using the fake currency.

On the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 that they were able to make out that
currency note alleged to have been given to P.W. 4, was fake "presumed" such a mens rea.

It is also not shown that any specific question with regard to the currency-noted being fake on
counterfeit was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure
Code.

On these facts charges framed under Sections 489B and 489C are not proved. So high court
acquit him of the said charges

5|Page
 CASE ANALYSIS

He was barely 18yrs old, when he was charged under section.489(A),(B),(C) of IPC relating to
counterfeiting of notes and other incriminating materials.

On 25th may 1990 he went to buy mango at night. It was just Rs 5 of cost. But he gave Rs 100
note. The lady selling mangoes got suspicious. It was the highest denomination note at that time.
She called her husband and he checked and found that it was fake. They called the police and
arrested him. Then they searched his home and found other incriminating materials like paper,
cutter, scissors, knife etc. He was convicted by trial court but acquitted by H.C only on the basis
that no mens rea was proved. Everything was proved that he had 13 fake notes and other
materials but his guilty mind could not be proved that he did not had knowledge that he possess
counterfeit notes. SC said that it would not make any differences that 4 persons in trade saw a
fake not and easily figure out that it is fake. Mere preponderence of probability and other things
used not be proved. Only mens rea i.e that he had knowledge that he possess fake notes, was
required. SC said” you cant compare, a rustic rural boy with adult men who deal with so many
currency notes daily.”

6|Page
 CONCLUSION

I agree with the decision of the High Court because it was very reasonable in the conclusions
that they reached. No intention was found in that case and proving mens rea is the greatest task
in the criminal law, and by these witness it is not enough to proof that the defendant is liable for
doing counterfeiting currency notes.

I consider the decision of the court has done justic

7|Page
8|Page