Prosecution must prove both knowledge and intent regarding the possession of forged currency; mere possession is insufficient for conviction under guiding statutes.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 17 April, 2008 and 18 April, 2008 respectively passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court Nadia in Sessions Trial No. (iv) (vi) (07) arising out of Sessions Case No. 106 (3) (07) convicting the appellant under S.489 (C) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months more.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 13.10.2005 at 15:15 hours the Sub-Inspector of Police filed a complaint at Dhubulia P.S. whereby the appellant Habibur Rahaman Mallick alias Habi resident of Chapra, Balir Mathpara P.S. Chapra, Nadia was apprehended with forged currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination amounting to Rs. 48,000/- in a plastic bag. On 13.10.2005 at about 10:05 hours de - facto complainant along with A.S.I. Pravat Biswas, Constable 747 Madhab Mondal, Constable 1679 Swapan Ghosh on the basis of a secret information registered Dhubulia P.S. GD entry number 533 dated 13.10.2005 and left for Sonatola. On reaching Sonatola at about 10:55 hours the aforesaid persons ambushed near Sonatola Ghat at a bamboo grove keeping their police vehicle at a distance. They found a person approaching towards them in a boat crossing the river 'Khari' and were identified as Habi by the source. The police surrounded the person in proximity to them and on query he disclosed his name to be Habibur Rahaman Mallick of Chapra Balir Mathpara who was carrying a plastic bag with a huge amount of cash, comprising of Rs.48,000/- all of Rs. 100 currency notes out of which two Indian currency notes of 100 rupees denomination had identical number. It was also found that two Indian Currency Notes of Rs. 100/- denomination having same number of 20p665323, 20p665306, 20p665309, 20p665308, 20p665376 respectively, three Indian Currency Notes of Rs. 100/- denomination having same number of 20p665382, 20p665387, 20p665384 respectively, four Indian Currency Note of Rs. 100/- denomination having same number 20p665376, 20p665394,20p665383 respectively, five Indian Currency Note of Rs. 100/- denomination having same number 20p665397, six Indian Currency Notes of Rs. 100/- denomination having same number 20p665369, 20p665385, 20p665387 respectively, seven Indian Currency Notes of Rs. 100/- denomination having same number of 20p665377, 20p665326, 20p665325, 20p665367, 20p665331 respectively, eight Indian Currency Notes of Rs. 100/- denomination having same number 20p665361, 20p665327, 20p665305, 20p665310, 20p665398, 20p665996, 20p665365, 20p665366, 20p665368, 20p665371, 20p665357, 20p665360, 20p665358, 20p665353, 20p665352, 20p665351, 20p665350, 20p665349, 20p665348, 20p665386 respectively, nine number of Indian Currency Notes of Rs. 100/- denomination having same number 20p665304, 20p665311, 20ps665312, 20p665399, 20p665370, 20p665359, 20p665356, 20p665355, 20p665354, 20p665352, 20p665337, 20p665331, 20p665339, 20p665388, 20p665389, 20p665390, 20p665391 respectively. There were fourteen, fifteen and nineteen numbers of Indian Currency Notes of Rs. 100/- denomination having same number of 20p665332, 20p665333, 20p665336 respectively. There were eighteen numbers of Indian Currency Notes of Rs. 100/- denomination having same number of 20p665334, 20p665335 respectively.

3. The appellant confessed those notes to be of fake Indian currency which were forged. In the presence of villagers namel