M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

1. The appellant was the accused in S.C. No. 103/89 of the Sessions Court, Kollam, and he has been convicted for the offence under Secs. 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and three years respectively for the two offences.

2. The prosecution case was that at about 2 p.m. on 20-6-1983, the accused went over to the shop of RW. 1 and after purchasing four Thoshiba Anand batteries worth Rs. 13.20 from the shop, tendered a 100 rupee note, the genuineness of which P.W.1 suspected. The accused immediately tried to get back the currency note. In the meantime, P.W.3 - Sub Inspector of Police.

who was going along the road, noticed a commotion in front of the shop and he caught hold of the accused straightaway and after preparing a mahazar, took him to the Police Station and registered the case.

3. Sri. S. Gopakumaran Nair, who appeared for the appellant, submitted that even accepting the version of P.W.1, there is no sufficient evidence to find the accused guilty of the two offences.

4. On the arguments advanced in the case, the points that arise for decision are:

(1) Whether the accused has committed the offence under S.489-B of the IPC?

(2) Whether the accused has committed the offence under S.489-C of the IPC?

(3) Reliefs

5. Point Nos.l and 2 :- These are dealt with together for the sake of convenience. The relevant provisions are extracted hereunder:

"489B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or banknotes.- Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.-Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

As far as S.489-C is concerned, what the prosecution has to prove is that the accused had in his possession a forged or counterfeit currency note with knowledge or reason to believe that the currency note is forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine. In the instant case, the fact that the accused tried to pass off M.O.1 currency note as genuine stands established through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2; but then, such attempt to use the currency note as genuine will not make the offence complete. As can be seen from the definition aforementioned, the prosecution has further to establish that the accused has done so with the knowledge or having reason to believe that M.O.1 was a forged or counterfeit note. Likewise, for establishing the offence under S.489-B of the IPC, it has to be established that the accused has received from any other person, or trafficked, in, or used as genuine, M.O.1 currency note, with the knowledge or belief that what he was handing over to P.W. 1 was a forged or counterfeit note. With regard to the aspect of belief or knowledge, it may not be possible to get direct evidence Nevertheless, the prosecution is not relieved of its responsibility to adduce sufficient evidence in the matter even if it is through other circumstantial evidence. As far as the present case is concerned, there is considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that absolutely no effort was made by P.W.3 - Sub Inspector of Police to enquire into the source of M.O.1. He did not even bother to make a search in the house of the ac