The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'knowledge or reason to believe' in establishing guilt for the offences under Section 489-B and 489-C of the RPC, emphasizing the need for clear evidence to support the accused's guilty knowledge of the forged nature of the currency notes.

JUDGMENT :

1) The appellant has called into question judgment dated 23.07.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby he has been convicted of offences under Section 489-B and 489-C of the RPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 26.07.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby the appellant in proof of offence under Section 489-B of RPC has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and a to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- whereas in proof of offence under Section 489-C of RPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further imprisonment of like nature for a period of six months and three months respectively.

2) Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 29th October, 1999, the police of Police Post, Parade, Jammu, received an information that a Kashmiri person, namely, appellant herein, has purchased certain articles from Sumitra Gift Centre, Purani Mandi, against payment of fake notes. This information was entered into Daily Diary and on its basis, FIR No.154/1999 for offences under Section 489-B and 489-C RPC was registered with Police Station, Pacca Danga, Jammu. Investigating Officer, PW-5, Himat Singh, proceeded to the spot and apprehended the appellant while tendering fake notes. Four fake currency notes of five hundred denomination bearing serial Nos.9RC 808110, 5XN 828917, 1HB 568116 and 5RE 972511 were recovered from the possession of the appellant. One of the notes bearing No.1HB 568116 was found torn from the center whereas another note bearing No.5RE 972511 was found in a wrinkled condition. The seized notes were sent for examination to Assistant Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Railway Road, Jammu, who opined that these notes are fake in nature. Accordingly, offences under Section 489-B and 489-C of RPC were found established against the appellant and the charge sheet was laid before the trial court.

3) The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove charges against the appellant, examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW-1, Pardeep Sharma, PW-2, Ashok Kumar SGC, PW-3, Rakesh Kumar, PW-4, Shahab Danish, PW-5, Himat Singh Inspector, and PW6-Sanjeev Mahindroo.

4) After completing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence led by the prosecution were put to the appellant to seek his explanation and his statement under Section 342 of the J&K Cr. P. C was recorded. In his statement, the appellant denied that fake currency notes were recovered from his possession and claimed that he has been falsely implicated by the police. The appellant entered his defence and examined one witness viz. DW Maharaj Krishan Koul, in defence.

5) The learned trial court, after hearing the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the charges for offences under Section 489B and 489C of RPC are established against the appellant and consequently the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence came to be passed.

6) The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence on the grounds that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper manner. It has been contended that there was no evidence on the record of the trial court to show that the appellant was having knowledge or he had reason to believe that the currency notes allegedly recovered from his possession were forged. It has also been contended that even the seizure memo has not been proved as the only independent witness to the seizure has turned hostile. It has been further contended that the ingredients of offences under Section 489-B and 489-C of RPC have not been established from the evidence on record and this aspect of the matter has been ignored by the trial court while passing the judgmen