T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the A.P.P.,.
2. This application is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge wherein the application filed by the petitioner for
discharge from offence u/s 489(b) and 489(c) and 420 of the I.P.C.
3. The short fact is that the applicant is a businessman while tendering the amount of applicant''s electric bill at the office of M.S.E.B. Sub-Division,
Mahad, he had to present a counterfeit currency note of Rs. 100/- bearing No. 6AM 724288. It is alleged that he intended to use the counterfeit
note as genuine currency note. However informant Balkrishna Mahadeo Pingale got suspicious about genuineness of the currency note because he
could not find lion (trimurti) water seal, denomination water seal on the said note. Similarly paper used for the currency note was ordinary paper
and therefore he went to the Accountant Mr. Waregaonkar. On perusal of the note he took it to the Asstt. Engineer Mr. D.K. Mane and thereafter
the note was taken to the local branch of the State Bank. Mr. Bapat was working as Manager at that time, handed over the note to the Head
Cashier. The Head Cashier opined that the said currency note was counterfeit and thereafter one F.I.R. came to be filed against the petitioner.
After the investigation charge-sheet has been filed.
4. The Petitioner contended before the Sessions Court that in view of the Supreme Court decision in Mohd Yasin v. State of U.P., he prayed for
discharge. The said application, however has been rejected by the Sessions Court. From the F.I.R. and the order impugned herein, it is clear that
the petitioner had no knowledge that the note was one of counterfeit. The Supreme Court has held in 1979 SC 1705 presumption of knowledge
from mere possession of it could not be drawn unless note was apparently counterfeit. In this case also before confirming that the note was
counterfeit, it was examined by several persons, who are expert in finding out to identify the counterfeit note. As I indicated earlier first was
detected by Balkrishna, then the Accountant Waregaonkar, then again Asst. Engineer Mane and lastly Mr. Bapat the Manager of the State Bank
of India and ultimately the cashier of the Bank. The fact that the note was fake was confirmed only after examining the five experienced persons in
that field, will clearly go to show that there is no apparent signs in the note for any ordinary man to come to the conclusion that it is a counterfeit
note. Admittedly the petitioner is an ordinary man, who is not in the field of examining the note every day. Therefore mere possession of the
counterfeit note will have no presumption of the knowledge of the note. In order to bring the offence u/s 489(b) and (c) it should be established
that note must be used knowing fully well that the note was counterfeit one. A petitioner who happened to come into possession casually cannot be
prosecuted unless there are materials that he was using the note knowing that it is counterfeit.
5. In the circumstances, I find that the order declining the discharge of the applicant should be set aside.
6. In the result Revision Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs.
Parties to act on the copy authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.
