Facts of the Case
A gives a coin to B, knowing fully well that the coin is counterfeit. However, B is unaware of the counterfeit nature of the coin and believes it to be genuine. Acting in good faith, B passes the same coin to C during a lawful transaction. Later, when C examines his cash, he discovers that the coin is counterfeit.
C alleges that the act of passing a counterfeit coin amounts to an offence and raises a question regarding B’s criminal liability. The issue is whether B can claim immunity, considering that he had no knowledge or intention to circulate a counterfeit coin.
Issues in the Case
The following issues arise for consideration:
- Whether B committed an offence by passing a counterfeit coin to C.
- Whether knowledge or intention (mens rea) is necessary to establish criminal liability.
- Whether B can claim immunity due to absence of guilty mind.
- How jurisprudence treats actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is guilty).
Legal Principles Covered Supporting the Proceedings and Judgements
(a) Mens Rea in Criminal Law
One of the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence is that mens rea (guilty intention) is essential for criminal liability unless expressly excluded by statute.
(b) Indian Penal Code Provisions
Under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, possession or circulation of counterfeit coin or currency is punishable only if the person knows or has reason to believe that the coin is counterfeit.
(c) Legal Maxim
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
This maxim emphasizes that mere physical act without guilty intent does not constitute a crime.
(d) Application to the Present Case
B lacked both knowledge and intention. He acted in good faith and had no reason to suspect the coin was counterfeit. Hence, the essential element of mens rea is absent.
(e) Jurisprudential Basis
Criminal liability is based on moral blameworthiness. Punishing an innocent mind would violate principles of justice and fairness.
Possible Judgement (With Reason)
The court would hold that B is not criminally liable and can claim immunity. Since B neither knew nor had reason to believe that the coin was counterfeit, the essential ingredient of mens rea is absent.
Under Section 489C IPC, knowledge is a mandatory requirement. Therefore, B’s act of passing the coin amounts to a purely innocent act, and no offence is made out against him. However, A, who knowingly passed the counterfeit coin, would be criminally liable.
About lawgnan
Understanding the role of mens rea and criminal intention is vital for mastering jurisprudence and criminal law concepts. At lawgana.in, we explain complex legal principles like guilty mind, statutory offences, and legal maxims through clear, exam-oriented answers. Whether you are an LLB student, judiciary aspirant, or legal researcher, our structured content helps you apply legal reasoning accurately in problem-based questions. Visit lawgana.in today to access simplified jurisprudence notes, case-law explanations, and high-quality legal content designed for academic and professional excellence.
