The challenge in the appeal is with regard to the conviction entered against the appellant who was the accused in S.C. No. 157/93 of the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Kollam for the offence under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default rigorous imprisonment for a further term of one year) imposed therefor.

The prosecution alleged that at about 3.00 p.m. on 1-10-1987 the accused approached PW 3, who is a meat vendor, while he was at the Churulikkodu Junction and after introducing himself, offered to advance cash for the business of PW 3 and suggested that both could go to the house of PW 3 and discuss the matter. He also took from the pocket of his underwear a handful of notes of Rs. 20/- denomination and extended it PW 3. When PW 3 got the notes and examined, he found that its colour materially differed from that of genuine currency notes that and hence became suspicious. PW 3 therefore not only did not receive it, but passed on the information to the Police through his friend without causing suspicion to the accused. Subsequently, PW 1 Police Head Constable came with his party, interrogated the accused and conducted search of his body, whereupon 55 numbers of counterfeit Indian currency of Rs. 20/- denomination were recovered from the shirt pocket of the accused. In the due course, the accused and seized currency notes were removed to the police station and case registered and investigated.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are very many contradictions between the evidence of PW 1 and PWs 3 and 4, and that PW 7, who was allegedly available at the spot at the time of seizure, was not examined. According to him, the prosecution version that the accused offered a loan to a stranger like PW 3, prima facie, is unbelievable. Lastly, it is contended that mere possession of currency note is not an offence and that there is no evidence adduced in the case to show that the accused had possessed the currency notes with knowledge that they were fake currency notes and also with intention to use them as genuine. The decision in Gafoor v. State of Kerala, (1987) 2 Ker LT 730 is also relied on in this regard.

On the argument advanced in the case, the points that arise for decision are :-

(1) Whether the accused was in conscious possession of counterfeit currency notes as alleged ?

(2) Whether there is reliable evidence to conclude that the accused has committed the offence under Section 489-C of the I.P.C. ?

The points :- It is true that there is some variation between the version of PW 3 and PWs 1 and 4. PW 3 stated in the box that after the police arrived at the spot they searched the shirt pocket of the accused and currency notes worth Rs. 1,000/- were seized therefrom. He also stated that when the pocket of the underwear worn by the accused was searched five more fake currency notes were found therein, which were also seized. Thus, accordingly to PW 3, out of 55 currency notes 50 were in the pocket of the shirt and 5 others were in the pocket of the underwear. As against, this, the version of PWs 1 and 4 is that all the 55 currency notes were seized from the shirt pocket.

The learned Public Prosecutor, who was heard, submitted that possibility, PW 3 has committed a mistake in this regard. He pointed out in the Chief Examination that the currency notes were originally in the pocket of the underwear and that when PW 3 refused to accept the same as they appeared to be counterfeit currency notes, the accused got them back from him and put them in the shirt pocket. Thus, according to PW 3, part of the notes were originally in the pocket of the underwear and at the time when the Police arrived, all the 55 notes were in the shirt pocket and it was in these circumstances, that a mistake was committed by him.

Whatever that be, even if the evidence of PW 3 is not believed fully, there is evidence of PWs 1 and 4 as to the