1997 PLP 976 (MLD)

2. Nasir Ahmad has appealed against his conviction and sentence.

3. The case against Nasir Ahmad appellant was registered at the instance of complainant Haji Abdul Ghani (P.W.1) vide F.I.R. (Exh.P.A.), dated the 29th of July, 1990 and reduced into writing by S.I. Muhammad Anwar (P.W.5.),

4. The formal F.I.R. (Exh. P.A./1) was drawn by S.I. Adalat Hussain (P.W.4) under section 489‑B, P.P.C. at Police Station Waris Khan of Rawalpindi District on the 29th of July, 1990, at about 6‑20 p.m.

5. According to the complainant Haji Abdul Ghani (P.W.1), Nasir Ahmad appellant came to his shop in Sarafa Bazar of Rawalpindi and said that he wanted to purchase golden bangles for which he made payment of Rs.13,000.

6. Thirteen currency notes (P.1 to P.13) were handed over by Nasir Ahmad appellant to complainant Haji Abdul Ghani (P.W.1). The currency notes were of denomination of Rupees One Thousand each. On being handed over the said currency notes, complainant Haji Abdul Ghani (P.W.1) at once realised that the notes in question were counterfeit. Nasir Ahmad appellant tried to escape but he was apprehended by the complainant Haji Abdul Ghani alongwith the other shopkeepers of the locality including Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.3) who witnessed the entire transaction.

7. Nasir Ahmad 'appellant was handed over to S.I. Muhammad Anwar (p.W.5) alongwith the counterfeit currency notes which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh. P.B. dated the 29th of July, 1990, which were signed by S.I. Muhammad Anwar (P.W.5), complainant Haji Abdul Ghani (P.W.1), Haji Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.3) and Haji Saleem Shahid, a shopkeeper of the same locality, who was given up during the trial by the prosecutor as being unnecessary.

8. The appellant pleaded total denial and false implication.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the prosecution suffered on account of contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and further submitted that the appellant did not have either the knowledge or reasons to believe that the currency in question was counterfeit and that mere possession was insufficient to record a conviction. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the following cases:‑‑ (1) Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti v. The State (1993 PCr.LJ 1128). (2) Tariq v. The State (1991 MLD 2173).

10. There is no cavil with the proposition that mere possession does not constitute evidence under section 489‑B, P.P.C. and that knowledge or at least reasons to believe that the currency in question is counterfeit is essential. However, knowledge or reasons to believe have to be inferred from the evidence and attending circumst.4.nces of every case. In the instant case, the appellant pleaded total denial of the entire occurrence. He did not own the currency notes in question, nor did he plead that he did not have knowledge or the reasons to believe that the said currency notes were counterfeit. As a matter of fact, the appellant tried to escape from the place of occurrence i.e. the jewellery shop of complainant Haji Abdul Ghani (P.W.1) where he tried to use the said counterfeit currency notes in order to purchase jewellery.

11. The evidence produced by the prosecution is independent, consistent and truthful. There is no reason whatsoever for false implication. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12 Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. N.H.Q./N‑14/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.