LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of co-accused statements and the requirement of independent evidence for framing charges in counterfeit currency cases.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Another
[Judgment Date]: 24 April 2019
Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 383
Judges: Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph. The judgment was authored by Justice K.M. Joseph.
Can a person be charged solely based on a co-accused’s statement, especially when that statement is not corroborated by any independent evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case concerning counterfeit currency. The Court examined the admissibility of statements made to police officers and the necessity of independent evidence to frame charges. The bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, delivered the judgment, with Justice K.M. Joseph authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case originated from an FIR filed on April 10, 1996, alleging that Mahamad Rafik Abdul Hamid Kadge and Salim Mahebub Shaikh were selling counterfeit Arabian Riyal currency notes. The FIR stated that these individuals were apprehended near a road in Ahmedabad while transacting with the fake currency. During their arrest, 88 counterfeit notes were seized. The accused, Mahamad Rafik Abdul Hamid Kadge, stated that he had obtained the notes from Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel, the appellant, to sell them as genuine currency.
The police also apprehended Usmangani Mahamadbhai Malek, who was found with two counterfeit notes. According to the FIR, Mahamad Rafik Abdul Hamid Kadge had been in Ahmedabad for 15 days, during which he allegedly contacted Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel to sell the counterfeit currency. The FIR also mentioned that Mahamad Rafik Abdul Hamid Kadge obtained the counterfeit notes from Dipakbhai’s residence, which he then handed over to Salim Mahebub Shaikh and Usmangani Mahamadbhai Malek.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 10.04.1996 | FIR filed against Mahamad Rafik Abdul Hamid Kadge and Salim Mahebub Shaikh for selling counterfeit currency. |
| 10.04.1996 | Mahamad Rafik Abdul Hamid Kadge, Salim Mahebub Shaikh, and Usmangani Mahamadbhai Malek were arrested. |
| 11.04.1996 | Statement of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel recorded by police. |
| 10.07.1996 | Second statement of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel recorded by police. |
| 30.08.1996 | Further questioning of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel by police. |
| 24.04.2019 | Supreme Court judgment quashing charges against Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Court rejected Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel’s plea for discharge, stating that there was some evidence against him, and without recording evidence, it was not possible to conclude that there was no evidence against the appellant. The Sessions Court noted that the recovery of the counterfeit currency was made in the presence of witnesses. The High Court of Gujarat also rejected the appellant’s plea, stating that statements of the co-accused recorded by the police indicated the appellant’s involvement, particularly that counterfeit notes were found at his residence. The High Court also noted that the credibility of statements made by the officer in the complaint could be considered only during the trial. The High Court further stated that the statements of witnesses present during the seizure of the counterfeit currency would also be considered by the trial court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and their interpretation.
- Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: deals with “Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.” It states, “Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: addresses “Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.” It states, “Whoever has in his possession any forged or counter – feit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
The court also considered the following sections of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
- Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: renders inadmissible a confession made to a Police Officer. It states, “No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”
- Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: states, “No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.”
- Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: provides an exception to Sections 25 and 26 regarding the admissibility of information leading to discovery.
- Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: deals with the consideration of a proved confession affecting the person making it and others jointly under trial for the same offense. It states, “When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.”
- Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: allows the police to examine witnesses.
- Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: restricts the use of statements made to the police during investigation.
- Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: defines an admission as “a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.”
- Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: deals with the proof of admissions against persons making them.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the High Court erred in stating that counterfeit currency was recovered from his residence. The recovery was made from a public road, not his residence.
- The appellant contended that a person cannot be charged solely based on a co-accused’s statement without any other corroborating evidence.
- The appellant argued that the statement of the co-accused is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- The appellant relied on Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [(1998) 7 SCC 337], arguing that a co-accused’s confession cannot be the sole basis for framing charges.
- The appellant contended that the ingredients of Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were not met. He cited Bur Singh v. The Crown [(1930) ILR 11 Lah 555] and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1981 SCC Online P&H 47] to argue that mere possession of counterfeit currency is not an offense unless there is an intention to use it as genuine.
- The appellant also relied on Umashanker v. State of Chhatisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 642], emphasizing that mens rea (guilty mind) is essential for offenses under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
State’s Arguments:
- The State argued that the appellant had knowledge that the notes were counterfeit and was in conscious possession of them for 15 days.
- The State relied on the appellant’s statement, where he allegedly admitted that the co-accused left a bag containing counterfeit notes at his residence.
- The State contended that the case was at the stage of framing charges, and a prima facie case existed for proceeding against the appellant.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (State) |
|---|---|---|
| Basis for Charges |
✓ No recovery of counterfeit currency from appellant’s residence. ✓ Charges cannot be based solely on co-accused statement. ✓ Statement of co-accused is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
✓ Appellant had knowledge of counterfeit notes. ✓ Appellant was in conscious possession of counterfeit notes for 15 days. ✓ Appellant admitted that the co-accused left the bag of counterfeit notes at his residence. |
| Legal Provisions & Case Laws |
✓ Relied on Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra to argue that a co-accused’s confession cannot be the sole basis for framing charges. ✓ Relied on Bur Singh v. The Crown and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that mere possession is not an offense without intention to use it as genuine. ✓ Relied on Umashanker v. State of Chhatisgarh to emphasize the importance of mens rea. |
✓ Relied on the appellant’s statement to show his knowledge and possession of counterfeit notes. |
| Stage of Proceedings | ✓ High Court should have exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC and allowed discharge plea. | ✓ Case is at the stage of framing of charge, and a prima facie case exists. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:
- Whether the High Court erred in holding that the counterfeit currency was recovered from the residence of the appellant.
- Whether a person can be proceeded against solely on the basis of a statement made by a co-accused, without any other corroborating evidence.
- Whether the ingredients of Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were established against the appellant.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court erred in holding that the counterfeit currency was recovered from the residence of the appellant. | Yes | The court noted that the counterfeit currency was recovered from a public road, not the appellant’s residence. |
| Whether a person can be proceeded against solely on the basis of a statement made by a co-accused, without any other corroborating evidence. | No | The court held that a co-accused’s statement alone is not sufficient to frame charges, especially when there is no other material to support it. The court relied on Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra. |
| Whether the ingredients of Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were established against the appellant. | No | The court found that there was no evidence to establish the required mens rea (guilty mind) for offenses under Sections 489B and 489C. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
| Case Name | Court | Legal Point | How it was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [(1998) 7 SCC 337] | Supreme Court of India | Admissibility of co-accused confession | The Court relied on this case to hold that a co-accused’s confession alone is insufficient to frame charges. |
| Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC 159] | Supreme Court of India | Evidentiary value of co-accused confession | The Court referred to this case to emphasize that a co-accused’s confession can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence, not as primary evidence. |
| Bur Singh v. The Crown [(1930) ILR 11 Lah 555] | Lahore High Court | Requirements for offense under Section 489C | The Court referred to this case to highlight that mere possession of a forged note is not an offense unless there is an intention to use it as genuine. |
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1981 SCC Online P&H 47] | Punjab and Haryana High Court | Requirements for offense under Section 489C | The Court cited this case to reinforce that mere possession of counterfeit notes is not sufficient for conviction under Section 489C without proof of intention to use them as genuine. |
| Umashanker v. State of Chhatisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 642] | Supreme Court of India | Mens rea in offenses under Sections 489B and 489C | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that mens rea (guilty mind) is essential for offenses under Sections 489B and 489C. |
| State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [AIR 1977 SC 2018] | Supreme Court of India | Principles for framing charges and discharge | The Court referred to this case to explain the principles for framing charges and discharge, emphasizing that the court must sift through the materials but not act as a mere post office. |
| Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [AIR 1979 SC 366] | Supreme Court of India | Principles for framing charges and discharge | The Court cited this case to further explain the principles for framing charges, highlighting that the court has the power to sift and weigh evidence for the limited purpose of finding a prima facie case. |
| Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor [(1939) PC 47] | Privy Council | Definition of confession | The Court referred to this case to understand what constitutes a confession, noting that a confession must admit the offense or substantially all the facts that constitute the offense. |
| Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1952 SC 354] | Supreme Court of India | Definition of confession | The Court cited this case to support the definition of confession as established in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor. |
| Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1976 SC 1167] | Supreme Court of India | Definition of confession | The Court referred to this case to further support the definition of confession as established in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor. |
| M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra [AIR 1954 SC 300] | Supreme Court of India | Scope of Article 20(3) of the Constitution | The Court cited this case to discuss the scope of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. |
| State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad [AIR 1961 SC 1808] | Supreme Court of India | Meaning of “person accused of an offence” | The Court referred to this case to define the meaning of “person accused of an offence” under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. |
| Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani [AIR 1978 SC 1025] | Supreme Court of India | Police power to question an accused under Section 161 Cr.PC | The Court cited this case to establish that the police have the power to question an accused person under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| Mahabir Mandal v. State of Bihar [AIR 1972 1331] | Supreme Court of India | Admissibility of statements made to police | The Court referred to this case to discuss the inadmissibility of statements made to the police under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla [AIR 1998 SC 1406] | Supreme Court of India | Distinction between confession and admission | The Court cited this case to clarify the distinction between a confession and an admission. |
| Bharat Singh v. Mst. Bhagirathi [AIR 1966 SC 405] | Supreme Court of India | Evidentiary value of admissions | The Court referred to this case to explain the evidentiary value of admissions, stating that admissions are substantive evidence. |
| Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1184] | Supreme Court of India | Evidentiary value of co-accused confession | The Court referred to this case to explain that a co-accused’s confession cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can only be used for assurance after other evidence is considered. |
Legal Provisions:
- Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.
- Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.
- Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Confession to police officer not to be proved.
- Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.
- Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: How much of information received from accused may be proved.
- Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.
- Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Examination of witnesses by police.
- Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence.
- Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Admission defined.
- Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s argument that the High Court erred in stating that counterfeit currency was recovered from his residence. | Accepted. The court acknowledged that the recovery was from a public road, not the appellant’s residence. |
| Appellant’s contention that a person cannot be charged solely based on a co-accused’s statement without any other corroborating evidence. | Accepted. The court held that a co-accused’s statement alone is not sufficient to frame charges. |
| Appellant’s argument that the statement of the co-accused is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. | Acknowledged. The court noted the inadmissibility of confessions made to a police officer. |
| State’s argument that the appellant had knowledge that the notes were counterfeit and was in conscious possession of them for 15 days. | Rejected. The court found no independent evidence to support this claim. |
| State’s argument that the appellant admitted that the co-accused left a bag containing counterfeit notes at his residence. | Rejected. The court held that the statement was inadmissible under Section 162 of the Cr.PC. |
| State’s contention that the case was at the stage of framing charges, and a prima facie case existed for proceeding against the appellant. | Rejected. The court found that there was no sufficient material to frame a charge. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The court relied on Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [(1998) 7 SCC 337]* to hold that a co-accused’s confession alone is insufficient to frame charges.
- The court referred to Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC 159]* to emphasize that a co-accused’s confession can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence.
- The court referred to Bur Singh v. The Crown [(1930) ILR 11 Lah 555]* to highlight that mere possession of a forged note is not an offense without an intention to use it as genuine.
- The court cited Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1981 SCC Online P&H 47]* to reinforce that mere possession of counterfeit notes is not sufficient for conviction without proof of intention to use them as genuine.
- The court relied on Umashanker v. State of Chhatisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 642]* to emphasize that mens rea (guilty mind) is essential for offenses under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The court referred to State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [AIR 1977 SC 2018]* to explain the principles for framing charges and discharge.
- The court cited Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [AIR 1979 SC 366]* to further explain the principles for framing charges.
- The court referred to Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor [(1939) PC 47]* to understand what constitutes a confession.
- The court cited Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1952 SC 354]* and Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1976 SC 1167]* to support the definition of confession.
- The court cited M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra [AIR 1954 SC 300]* to discuss the scope of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
- The court referred to State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad [AIR 1961 SC 1808]* to define the meaning of “person accused of an offence”.
- The court cited Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani [AIR 1978 SC 1025]* to establish police power to question an accused under Section 161 Cr.PC.
- The court referred to Mahabir Mandal v. State of Bihar [AIR 1972 1331]* to discuss the inadmissibility of statements made to the police.
- The court cited Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla [AIR 1998 SC 1406]* to clarify the distinction between a confession and an admission.
- The court referred to Bharat Singh v. Mst. Bhagirathi [AIR 1966 SC 405]* to explain the evidentiary value of admissions.
- The court referred to Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1184]* to explain that a co-accused’s confession cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of independent evidence against the appellant and the inadmissibility of the co-accused’s statement as the sole basis for framing charges. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal principles and safeguarding individual liberties. The court was also concerned about the fact that the High Court had wrongly stated that the recovery was made from the residence of the appellant.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of independent evidence against the appellant. | 40% |
| Inadmissibility of co-accused’s statement as the sole basis for framing charges. | 30% |
| Incorrect statement of the High Court regarding recovery from the appellant’s residence. | 20% |
| Importance of adhering to legal principles and safeguarding individual liberties. | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The court’s reasoning was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (60%) than factual aspects (40%). The court focused on the legal principles surrounding the admissibility of evidence and the requirements for framing charges, rather than the specific factual details of the case.
Logical Reasoning
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the charges against Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel. The court held that the High Court erred in not exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings against the appellant. The court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the lack of independent evidence and the inadmissibility of the co-accused’s statement.
Impact
This judgment has significant implications for cases involving counterfeit currency and co-accused statements. The key takeaways are:
- Inadmissibility of Co-Accused Statements: A person cannot be charged solely based on a co-accused’s statement without any other corroborating evidence.
- Importance of Independent Evidence: Independent evidence is crucial for framing charges, particularly in cases involving serious offenses.
- Mens Rea Requirement: For offenses under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must establish the accused’s intention to use the counterfeit currency as genuine.
- Judicial Scrutiny: Courts must carefully scrutinize the evidence before framing charges and should not act merely as a post office.
- Safeguarding Individual Liberties: The judgment underscores the importance of safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring that charges are not framed without sufficient legal basis.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of the rule of law, the need for a fair trial, and the protection of individual rights. It emphasizes that the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case before charges can be framed.