1984 P Cr (PLP)

7. Complainant Abdul Majid has given the story as narrated above. In cross-examination he admitted that the appellant showed his ignorance regarding currency notes being forged. He further admitted that the appellant had told him that he had received these currency notes during the course of business and he also gave his name as Muhammad Hassan Makrani. He has produced the F. I. R. which he had lodged at Tando adam Police Station as Exh. 6.

8. P. W. Bacho (Exh. 12) is only a mashir in whose presence five currency notes were produced by the complainant before the S. H. O. But he has denied that 28 currency notes were secured from the Person of the appellant, although he admits that he had signed the two mashirnama, Exhs. 14 and 13 relating to securing of 5 currency notes from com plainant and 28 currency notes from the person of accused/appellant respectively.

9. P. W. Ghulam Qadir (Exh. 15) was Cashier of United Bank Ltd. Tandoadam and the relevant time. He was called by the complainant and shown the 5 currency notes which he had received from the appellant. The witness stated that he had examined the notes and found them to be forged. He further stated that the appellant was standing at the shop and that he had admitted that he had given the notes to the complainant. In cross-examination this witness stated that a layman cannot distinguish between genuine and false currency notes. He further admitted that the appellant told him that he was Hari and had sold cotton pods for which he received the currency notes. He admitted that the appellant did not try to run away or escape.

10. Mr. Najmuddin (Exh. 19) stated that out of the 33 currency notes sent to him by S. H. O. Tandoadam for examination, he had found 26 to be forged and seven to be genuine and that he had sent such report to the S. H. O. He has proved the report as (Exh. 17) which has been produced by Mr. Abdul Jabbar S. H. O. This witness also admitted in cross-exami nation that a layman cannot distinguish whether these currency notes are genuine or forged.

11. Mr. Abdul Jabbar S. H. O. (Exh. 16) is the Investigating Officer, He has proved the F. I. R. (Exh. 6) and has stated about securing 5 currency notes from the complainant and 26 currency notes from the person of the appellant. All the notes were of the denomination of Rs. 100 each. He has proved the mashirnamas of securing these currency notes which are Exhs. 13 and

14. In cross-examination he stated:- "I could not say whether these currency notes were genuine and a such I sent the notes to the Officer of the Bank."

12. The plea of the appellant is that he is a cultivator and that -he bad received the notes from an unknown person who bad purchased cotton pods from him for Rs. 3,600 and that he did not know if any of these currency notes were forged as he is illiterate villager.

13. The learned trial Judge found the accused/appellant guilty by holding that the accused/appellant had passed the forged currency notes knowing them of having reason to believe that the same were forged. Reason given by him was that the appellant should be presumed to know or to have reasonable belief that the currency notes were forged. He did not give any reason for raising the said presumption against the appel lant, nor did he identified the circumstances which could lead to the presumption of guilty knowledge or belief on the part of the appellant.

14. Section 489-B lays down, inter alia, that whoever uses as genuine any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life. The essential ingredient of an offence under the above section is that the offender should not only be in possession of the currency notes but should use them knowing the same or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit. Thus possession simpliciter of forged currency notes without the required guilty knowledge or belief would not be sufficient to convict the possessor or user of such currency notes for offence under section 489-B. In the case of Salvator Belvisi v. The Sate (P L D 1961 Kar. 342), it was observed by Nazeer Ahmed Mahmood, J. as under:-- "Under section 489-C, Penal Code, 1860, the mere possession of forged notes is not an offence under the Penal Code, 1860. In order to bring a case within the purview of section 489-C of the Code it is not only necessary to prove that the accused was in possession of the forged notes, but it should be further established (a) that at the time of his possession he knew the notes to be forged or had reason to believe them to be. so, (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 circumstances which lead clearly, indubit ably and irresistibly to the inference that the accused had the intention to foist the notes on the public." In support of the above view the learned Judge had relied on the case of Bur Singh v. The Crown (I L R 11 Lah. 555). The above-cited Karachi case was also relied upon in Amanat Ali v. The Stale (1971 P Cr. L J 53), in which the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court took the view that possession simpliciter of forged currency notes will not amount to offence under section 489-C of P. P. C. unless it is proved that the person possessing the same knew or had reason to believe that the currency notes were forged.

15. The principle which applies to offence under section 489-C shall also apply to offence under section 489-B because under both the sections B the essential ingredient is that person possessing forged currency notes or using the forged currency notes must know or have reason to believe that the currency notes were forged or counterfeit. Hence, the rule which has been laid down in the above decisions in respect of the offence under section 489-C shall also apply to offence under section 489-B. It is now to be seen whether in the present case the prosecution has succeeded in proving the requisite guilty knowledge or belief on the part of the appellant. From the evidence, substance of which has been stated in the foregoing paras., is that an illiterate villager had passed on five currency notes to complainant Abdul Majid as price of Barseeng seed purchased by him from the latter and that when he was taken to the Police Station 28 more currency notes were secured from his person. From the report of the Assistant Manager of the National Bank of Pakistan it transpired that out of the 33 currency notes which were used by or secured from possession of appellant, 26 notes were forged. The ques tion whether the appellant knew that these notes were forged or he had reasonable belief about the currency notes being forged, is to be concluded from the surrounding circumstances and the antecedents of the appellant. It is not denied that the appellant is a rustic cultivator. It has come in the evidence of the Investigating Officer Mr. Abdul Jabbar that he himself was not certain as to which of the currency notes secured from the appellant were forged and which of them were genuine. Even Assistant Manager of the National Bank has stated that it is not possible for a layman and much less for a rustic cultivator, to distinguish between forged and genuine currency notes of the nature which were secured from the appellant. Thus, there are several circumstances which militate against the guilty knowledge or belief on the part of the appellant about the currency notes being forged. These circumstances may be summarised as under:- (1) The appellant is a rustic villager and there is nothing to presume that his statement as to having received these notes during the course of business was false. (2) When complainant told the appellant that the five currency notes were forged, the appellant did not conceal the fact that he had more currency notes with him and showed the same to the complainant. (3) When Ghulam Qadir Cashier of United Bank Ltd. examined the five currency notes at the shop of the complainant he declared them to be forged in presence of the appellant, who did not conceal the fact that he was the person who had passed on the notes to the complainant. He did not try to run away from the shop which would have been the normal conduct of a person whose might have passed on forged currency notes with the requisite guilty knowledge or belief. Nor be would have admitted that there were more currency notes of the same denomination with him. (4) A person who possesses forged currency notes would not mix genuine notes with the forged. He would take care to keep genuine notes separate from the forged so that he can easily use or traffic in the forged notes. The evidence in the present case shows that out of 33 notes which the appellant possessed as many as 7 currency notes were genuine and the rest were forged. Had he knowledge that some of the notes were forged and the others were genuine, he would not have mixed up both the categories of the currency notes. (5) Even a person of the status of Police Sub-Inspector like Mr. Abdul Jabbar stated that he was unable to distinguish the forged notes from the genuine out of those which were secured in this case.

16. All the above circumstances lead to the inescapable presumption that the appellant did not know or did not reasonably believe that the currency notes which he had passed to the complainant or which were secured from his person, were forged or counterfeit. Even learned counsel for the State has conceded that the necessary ingredient of offence under section 489-B viz. knowledge or a reasonable belief regarding the currency notes being forged, has not been proved in this case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. For the above reasons I hold that the prosecution has failed to bring home to the appellant the charge of offence under section 489-B, P. P. C. or any other offence. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the E appellant is acquitted and he shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. These are the reasons for the short order announced earlier today. M. Y. H. ?????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.