This is a revision petition against the order of Ch. Bashir Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, dated 20-11-1969, whereby he upheld the order of Ch. Nazir Ahmad, Magistrate Section 30, Kasur, dated 30-8-1968. He convicted Amanat Ali petitioner for an offence under section 489-C, P. P. C.
And sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Amanat Ali petitioner and his companion Sher Muhammad (absconder) were appre--hended by Mohammad Sharif A. S. I. In the Red Light Area of Kasur in a state of intoxication do 15-7-1967. On a personal search of the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 1,021 were recovered. Out of this money, 10 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100 each i. e. Exhs. P. 1 to P. 10, were found to be forged cur--rency notes. A report had been made on 31-1-1967 by the Mana- -ger, National Bank of Pakistan, Kasur that one similar currency note had been presented to the Bank for exchange. The matter was, therefore, investigated and Amanat Ali petitioner and his companion were challaned for an offence under section 489-C, P. P. C. The case was sent up for trial. As Sher Mohammad (co-accused) had absconded, the evidence against him was recorded under section 512, Cr. P. C. The prosecution has relied on Mohammad Sharif (P. W. 5) and Bassa (P.
W. 6), who are the recovery witnesses, Mohammad Sharif, A. S. I. Is also a witness of the recovery inasmuch as he is the officer who got the money recovered from the petitioner. The learned trial Court relied on their evidence and convicted the petitioner, for the above noted offence and sentenced him to three years' R. I. Amanat Ali petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, who upheld the order of the trial Court vide his judgment dated 20-11-1969. Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the necessary ingredients of evidence under section 489-C, P. P. C. Have not been proved. The relevant section is reproduced below for ready reference:- "489-C. 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 seven years or with fine, or with both."
A reading of the section will show that it is necessary not only to prove that the accused was in possession of the forged---notes but it should be established further:-
(a) that at the the of his possession he knew the notes to be forged or had reason to believe them to be so, and
(b) that he intended to use them as genuine or that they might be used as genuine.
The onus lies on the prosecution to prove ingredients by direct evidence or by reliable circumstances which lead to an irresistible inference that the accused had either of the know-- ledge or the intention mentioned above.
4. In the present case only the recovery of forged notes has been proved through the recovery witnesses. The fact that the petitioner was apprehended with the forged currency notes in his possession when he was enjoying in the. Red Light Area would lead to an inference. It could be reasonably presumed that he had the intention to use the notes. There is however no circumstance on the record from which an irresistible conclusion could be drawn that he knew or had the reason to believe the notes to be forged. If the amount in question was a large one, it could be argued that he could not have come into possession of such a large number of currency notes without knowing or having reason to believe that they were forged. In the present case, however, the amount involved is only 10 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100 each.-
5. The prosecution produced Karamat Ullah Khan P. W. 2 and Mohammad Younis P. W. 3, the to officials of the National Bank of Pakistan, who deposed that the notes in question were forged one.
There is nothing on the record to show that a lay man merely by looking at the notes in question could realise that they were not genuine. It is quite possible for a person to be in possession of that amount which may not be genuine because one does not usually scrutinise the currency note or just of the denomination in question with much care or vigilant in order to discover whether or not is genuine note.
6. The learned counsel has cited to cases in support of the above noted argument. The first case is of Bur Singh v. The Crown (AIR 1931 Lah. 34), where the accused was found in posses--sion of three currency notes of Rs. 100 each. The accused in that case was convicted but the High Court accepted the appeal and set aside his conviction, and sentence and held that the prosecution has not established the above noted ingredients of section 489-C. The other case cited by the learned counsel is of Salvator Belvisi v. The State (PLD 1961 Kar.. 342). In this case the accused was found in possession of 44 forged 100-dollar notes. He was convicted under section 489-C but was acquitted on appeal by the high Court on the ground that the mere possession of forged-note is not an offence under the Penal Code and that in order to bring the case within the purview of the said section it is not necessary to prove: that the accused was in possession of the forged-notes but it has to be established further that at the the of the possession he knew them to be forged or had reason to believe them to be so.
7. In view of the above-mentioned discussion, I find that the necessary ingredients have not been established by the prosecution. The revision petition merits to be accepted. I set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore dated 20-11-1969 and the learned trial Court dated 30-8-1968, and acquit the petitioner. He may be released forthwith unless he is required in any other case.