In Re: Arumugham Pannadi and Narayana Pannadi

David Annoussamy, J.—This is a revision petition by two out of 7 accused. These two persons have been convicted under S. 489(c). I.P.C., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are confirmed by the lower appellate court.

The case of the prosecution was that all the accused along with P.Ws. 1 and 2, approvers, conspired between December, 1978 and May, 1980 at Sriviliputhur, Sattur, Sivakasi, Madurai, Madras and Kollam to counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 20 and Rs. 10 denomination and in pursuance of that conspiracy purchased machinery and other materials, printed counterfeit notes and were in possession of the same between the said dates and were making use thereof as genuine. They were, therefore, charged under Ss. 120-B read with S. 489 (a) to (e), I.P.C.

The trial court acquitted the accused except accused, 1 and 7 to 10. On appeal, the conviction of the first accused was set aside; but the conviction of accused 8 to 10 was confirmed. The seventh accused did not prefer any appeal. There is so revision by the ninth accused. The conviction against accused 8 and 10 is only in respect of the offence under S. 489(c), I.P.C ., and the sentence is of two years rigorous imprisonment.

P.W. 1 who was arrested on 3rd August, 1980 by P.W. 63 of Srivilliputhur gave a whole detail of the transactions between himself, P.W. 2 the other accused. As far as the case against accused 8 and 10 is concerned, as per the version of P.W. 1 the counterfeit notes were handed over to them by the ninth accused and P.W. 1 as standing at a distance to watch the operation. The other element of the offence in this case is that 200 ten rupee notes were seized from the eighth accused and were found to be the counterfeit notes. As far as accused No. 10 is concerned, fifty ten rupee notes were found in his possession and recovered from him.

The contention of the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that for an offence under S. 489(c), I.P.C. to be proved, three ingredients are necessary viz., possession, knowledge and intention and in this case, the prosecution has proved only possession of counterfeit currency notes and that there is not an iota of evidence regarding knowledge and intention.

In fact, a reading of S. 489(c) would clearly disclose that for proving the offence under S. 489(c), I.P.O., possession of counterfeit notes should be accompanied by the knowledge that the notes are forged and the intention to use the same as genuine. A reading of the judgments of both the trial courts and the lower appellate court shows that both the courts below have not paid any attention to these two essential ingredients of the offence viz., knowledge and intention. They were satisfied with the finding that the accused were in possession of the notes and went on to observe that the fact that they were in possession of the counterfeit notes, by itself would disclose that they had knowledge and reason to believe that they were in possession of counterfeit notes and that they might be used as genuine. The mere fact of possession would not be sufficient to prove knowledge and intention as required by S. 489(c), I.P.C. There should be some more circumstances from which conclusion can be safely drawn that such knowledge and intention were existent in the minds of the accused persons.

The Learned Counsel appearing for the learned Public Prosecutor stated that the very fact that the eight accused was in possession of as many as 200 ten rupees notes, which he produced from his waist and that the tenth accused was in possession of as many as 50 ten rupees notes, which were found in a separate cover in cash box would lead to inference that they had such knowledge and intention. The eighth accused, as seen from the records is a clerk. The tenth accused is a textile shop owner. Therefore, the simple fact that the eighth accused was possessing Rs. 2,000 and the tenth accused was keeping in a separate cover in his cash box Rs. 500 would not be sufficient to impute the knowledge and intention as contemplated under S. 489(c), I.P.C. There should have been some, more circumstances which would suggest knowledge and intention. It is alto to be noted that in this case P.W. 1, who deposed that counterfeit notes were passed on to accused 8 and 10, does not come forward to say that he informed accused 8 and 10 about the nature of the notes. On the contrary, his version is that notes were handed over to accused 8 and 10 by the accused. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution case against accused 8 and 10 is not sustainable, for the two essential ingredients have not been proved satisfactorily.

In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside.