Thiruvananthapuram | November 10, 2025 —
In a striking reminder of the Indian judicial system’s long pendency, the Kerala High Court has acquitted Abdul Hakkim, a man charged 38 years ago for allegedly possessing a counterfeit 100-dollar bill.
Justice Johnson John, delivering the verdict in Abdul Hakkim v. State of Kerala, found that the prosecution had failed to establish two key elements required for conviction under Section 489C of the IPC — that the accused knew the note was fake and that he intended to use it as genuine.
“It is well settled that simply because a counterfeit note is seized from the possession of the accused, the offence under Section 489C IPC will not be attracted,” the court said, underscoring that criminal intent cannot be presumed merely from possession.
An Incident from 1987, a Verdict in 2025
The case dates back to 1987, when Abdul Hakkim, then working as a headload worker near Thiruvananthapuram airport, was allegedly found carrying a fake $100 bill. Police claimed he had attempted to exchange it as genuine and was apprehended by a sub-inspector on patrol.
A sessions court in Kollam, in 2009, convicted Hakkim and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a ₹5,000 fine. Hakkim appealed the verdict, maintaining his innocence and asserting that the note had been handed to him by a group of foreign tourists as payment for loading their luggage.
He further stated that a dispute erupted among workers when they noticed the note was torn and taped together—prompting police intervention and his arrest.
Flawed Prosecution and Lost Evidence
Justice Johnson John noted several lapses in the prosecution’s case: two key witnesses turned hostile, the investigating officer had passed away before trial, and crucial testimonies were hearsay in nature.
The sub-inspector’s account, the court said, was based on information gathered from bystanders rather than direct observation. Moreover, no question had been posed to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC regarding his knowledge of the note’s counterfeit nature—an omission deemed fatal to the prosecution.
“The trial court erred in treating statements given to the police as substantive evidence,” the judgment read, adding that “the essential ingredients necessary to establish conviction under Section 489C IPC were missing.”
A Case that Tests the Boundaries of Intent
The verdict underscores a foundational principle in criminal law: mens rea, or the guilty mind. Merely holding a forged note, the court emphasized, does not equate to intent to defraud unless the prosecution can prove the accused’s awareness and intention.
By acquitting Hakkim, the High Court reinforced that Section 489C applies only when conscious possession and intent to circulate counterfeit currency are established beyond reasonable doubt.
After 38 years of uncertainty, Hakkim’s name has been cleared—a delayed but decisive recognition of the limits of criminal liability when intent cannot be proven.
