AMEERJAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused who has appealed to this Court hag been convicted for an offence under Section 489-C, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division. The case against him was that he was found in possession of 81 counter, feit ten rupee currency notes on 23-10-1948. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the notes in question are counterfeit. The same is not seriously disputed before us and is amply established by the evidence of P.W. 10, Coin and Currency Expert attached to the C. I. D. Mad. ras and who has been trained in the Bombay Mint and Nasik Currency Press. The appearance of the notes also makes it clear that they are not genuine and though a few of them are quite crude imitations, quite large number of others look very similar to genuine notes.

(2.) The Sessions Judge has also found that the accused must be held to have been in possession of these notes with a view to use them as genuine or with the object that they may be used as genuine knowing or having reason to believe that they were forged ones. It is contended before us that conclusion of the learned Judge is not correct.

(3.) The manner in which the prosecution have tried to establish that the possession or control of the notes was with the accused is through evidence that the accused showed the place where they had been hidden by him. [After discussing the evidence the judgment proceeded:] Mr. Krishna Rao the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the house in which the notes were discovered does not belong to the accused ; that in fact the learned Sessions Judge has found to that effect and that, therefore, he cannot be said to be in possession of the rotes. It must be remembered that this house is incomplete and hag not been roofed. It is in the evidence of P. W. 4 that the walls are about 5 to 6 ft. high and that there would be no difficulty in going in that house with the help of a ladder. Moreover there is another very strong circumstance against the accused. Mustafa D. w. 4 to whom the house is said to belong, appears to he closely related to the accused though he was unwilling to admit it at first. The accused's sister is married to Syed Sab, his brother; and Syed Sab and one Hazam who has married another sister of the accused are trading together. The accused appears to own a neighbouring vacant site and in Ex. D-10 which is a document executed by Mus'afa Sab agreeing to pay ground rent to D. W. 2 for the site on which the house is built the open space to the south of Musrafa Sab's site is shown as belonging to the accused. Access into that house would, therefore, have been quite easy for the accused.