Mere possession of a forged note does not constitute an offence under Sections 489b and 489c of the Penal Code. The prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the note was forged.

AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and order dt. June 17, 1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah under Sections 489b and 489c of the Penal Code, convicting and sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for each of the said charges, which would run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in short, is that at about 11 a. m. on 27th May, 1980, Madan Lal Sarma, an employee of Shri Jagadamba Cloth Stores came to the Howrah branch of Bank of Baroda. One Basudeo Ram was receiving the cash at the cash counter of the said bank on that day. The accused handed over a bundle of notes. In that bundle there were one hundred 100-rupee notes, a 10-rupee note and a 5-rupee note. The amount was tendered by the accused in order to get a draft for Rs. 10,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE said Basudeo Ram (PW 2) began counting the notes and at that time found a defective 100-rupee note. He asked the accused to change the defective note. The note was changed by the accused. He then reported the matter to the Cashier who in turn reported it to the Manager of the bank (PW 1 ). On hearing the incident, the Manager asked his assistants not to hand over the draft and to delay the matter. The accused was brought to the Chamber of the Manager and the police was informed.

( 4 ) THE Sub-Inspector Police at Howrah Kotwali P. S. (PW 4) came to the bank. He received the written complaint from the Manager of the bank and started the Howrah P. S. Case No. 37 dt. 27th May, 1980. He seized the alleged forged note in question from the accused and prepared a seizure list. Besides the said 100-rupee note, no other money was found in possession of the accused. The accused was searched once again and the draft and one receipt for the draft were seized. The note in question was then sent to the Indian Security Press, Nasik for examination and opinion. The note was ultimately despatched to the Bank Note Press where it was examined by the technical officer. Ink Factory, Bank Note Note Press, Dewas (M. P.) According to the said report the note was allegedly forged. It is made up of two parts neatly pasted together. The lower part is genuine, while the upper part is hand drawn replica of the lower part of the 100-rupee note. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted. The accused pleaded not guilty. The learned Judge held that the accused possessed and tendered the note with the knowledge that it was forged and intended to pass it as a genuine note. Consequently, he held the accused guilty under Sections 489b and 489c and the accused was accordingly convicted and sentenced.

( 5 ) UNDER S. 489b, I. P. C. the burden is on the prosecution to prove that at the time when the accused was passing the note he knew that it was a forged one. The mere possession of it by him does not shift the burden to the accused to prove his innocent possession of the forged note. Similarly, under S. 489c, it is to be proved that the accused intended to use the forged or counterfeit currency note as genuine or it might be used as genuine. It is for the prosecution to prove the circumstances which would irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the accused had the intention to introduce surreptitiously the note on the public. Thus knowledge or reason to believe that the note was forged has to be proved to fix the liability under Sections 489b and 489c.

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was in possession of the note alleged to be forged. But the question is whether he knew or he had reasons to believe that the said note was a forged note.

( 7 ) THE learned Judge held as follows :-"there is no doubt that the accused received the questioned note along with other notes from the employer. Now, the question comes whether he tried to pass it as a genuine note. This note was given by the accused to the Bank along with other genuine notes to get a draft. Therefore, it is obvious that he tried to use

Click Here to Read the rest of this document