Under section 489 -A of the IPC, counterfeiting of currency notes is a punishable offence.. An accused was charged for counterfeiting of foreign currency notes. He contends that the phrase “currency notes” as used in 489-Aof IPC should be restricted only to Indian Currency notes. Decide

Facts in the Case

  • The accused was charged under Section 489-A of the Indian Penal Code for counterfeiting currency notes.
  • The currency in question was foreign currency notes, not Indian rupee notes.
  • The accused challenged the charge, arguing that the term “currency notes” under Section 489-A IPC should be interpreted to mean only Indian currency notes.
  • He claimed that counterfeiting of foreign currency does not fall within the scope of Section 489-A.

Issues in the Case

  • Does the expression “currency notes” under Section 489-A IPC include foreign currency notes?
  • Is the accused liable under this provision for counterfeiting foreign currency?
  • What type of statutory interpretation is preferable to resolve the ambiguity in the phrase “currency notes”?

Principles Applied

1. Text of Section 489-A IPC

Section 489-A IPC: “Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currency note or bank-note, shall be punished…”

  • The statute does not expressly limit the term “currency note” to Indian currency.
  • The plain meaning of “currency note” would include any note recognized as legal tender, unless otherwise restricted.

2. Literal vs. Contextual Interpretation

  • Under the Literal Rule of Interpretation, words must be given their ordinary and natural meaning unless they are ambiguous or lead to absurdity.
  • However, when ambiguity arises, courts apply contextual or purposive interpretation to understand the intent of the legislature.

3. Purpose of Section 489-A

  • The objective of Section 489-A is to protect the economy, public trust, and security of transactions.
  • Allowing counterfeit foreign currency to circulate within India could also harm public confidence and national interest.
  • Hence, a wider interpretation of “currency notes” serves the remedial purpose of the provision.

4. Judicial Precedent

Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra v. K.S. Dalipsinghji, AIR 1959 SC 1311

  • The Supreme Court held that in criminal statutes with a protective purpose, beneficial and purposive interpretations are allowed to prevent evasion of the law.

Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404

  • The Court acknowledged that public order and integrity of currency are broader interests, and penal laws may be interpreted liberally when necessary to uphold such goals.

Judgment

  • The term “currency notes” under Section 489-A IPC must be interpreted broadly to include foreign currency notes, unless the statute explicitly excludes them.
  • The absence of a limiting clause such as “Indian currency” indicates that all forms of legal tender—whether domestic or foreign—are covered under the provision.
  • Thus, the accused’s contention fails, and the charge under Section 489-A for counterfeiting foreign currency is valid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *