Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 489

Penal Code (XL v of 1860) S. 489-C-Mere possession of forged currency-notes-Not enough to bring case within S. 489-C-Prosecution bound to establish further that at time of possession accused knew forged notes to be forged or had reason to believe them to be so-Amount involved being only 10 currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination and not a large one, held, it could not be argued that accused could not have come into possession of notes without knowing them to be forged or without having reason to believe them to be forged. Date of hearing : 16th June-1970.   JUDGMENT 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…