P.D. RAJAN, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the 1st accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C.126/2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc, Kalpetta under Section 489 (C) r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). The charge against the accused is that on 19.1.90 at 6.10 pm, accused was found in possession of 107 counterfeit currency notes of denomination of 10 in his house, No. AP 4/54 of Ambalavayal grama panchayat by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mananthavady. He was arrested and the counterfeit notes were seized, thereafter registered a case against the accused. The investigation was subsequently entrusted to CBCID, Kozhikode and Dy. S.P, CBCID (CFS Unit), Kozhikode who completed investigation and laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sultan bathery under Section 489(B) and 489(C) IPC. A2 and A3 were absconding, their case was split up and refilled as CP 44 of 2000. Hence the case of A1 was committed to Sessions court Kalpetta for trial.

2. In pursuance of the charge, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked Ext.P1 to P8 as documentary evidence. The material objects MO1 to 3 were admitted as evidence in the trial court. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 489(c) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by that he preferred this appeal.

3. Smt. Reshmi K.V. the learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was in possession of counterfeit notes knowing them to be forged or counterfeit notes. The detecting officer violated the benevolent provision of search and seizure and there is no independent evidence to prove the possession and ownership of the house and counterfeit notes.

4. Sri. Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the Sub Inspector, Mananthavady prepared a search memorandum and sent it to the court and thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence, conducted search and seizure.

5. The allegation is possession of counterfeit currency notes or forged notes. The word "counterfeiting" has been explained under Section 28 IPC and the main ingredients of the word counterfeiting laid down in the Section are:

(1) causing one thing to resemble another thing;

(2) intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception.

(3) knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised.

Therefore, it is clear that "Counterfeit" in the Section does not mean an exact reproduction of the original counterfeited. Explanation 2 of Section 28 is of great significance which lays down a rebuttable presumption where resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, in such a situation the intention or the knowledge is presumed unless the contrary is proved. In this context, what the court has to see is that whether one thing is constituted to resemble another thing and if that is so and if the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived by it, there will be a presumption of the necessary intention or knowledge to make the thing counterfeit, unless the contrary is proved. Here, parties have no dispute about the resemblance of the note but they are disputing the possession and its knowledge.

6. Possession of counterfeit currency note knowing the same to be forged is an offence under Section 489C IPC. The Section reads as follows:

"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 seve