[IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL]

1962 Present: Basnayake, C.J. (President), Abeyesundere, J., and
Silva, J.

THE QUEEN v. V. P. DAVID PERERA

APPEAL No. 9 OF 1962, WITH APPLICATION No. 9

 S. C. 23-M. C. Kandy, 18,359

Trial before Supreme Court-Charge of possessing or using a forged or counterfeit currency note-Burden of proof-Evidence-Effect of admission of irrelevant evidence-Limits within which the Judge may ask questions from a witness- Penal Code, ss. 478B, 478C-Evidence Ordinance, s. 165.

           In a prosecution for possession or use of a forged or counterfeit currency note the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the currency note referred to in the charge was forged or counterfeit.

       Although no objection is taken at the trial to the admission of irrelevant evidence, a verdict founded on such evidence is bad.

     Assuming that it is open to a Judge in a trial by jury to employ the provisions of action 165 of the Evidence Ordinance to put questions to a witness, then, if he asks questions about any facts which are irrelevant, it is incumbent on him to draw the attentio