C.A.RAHIM, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sen­tence dated 5-6-1980 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Ses­sions Trial No. 293 of 1979.
(2.) THE accused-appellant went to the medical store of Jagdish Kumar Agarwal P.W. 3 to purchase medicines. After pur­chasing one tube he made over one fifty rupees currency note (Ext. 1) to the shop keeper. The said Jagdish Kumar susptected as regards the genuineness of the said note and he went to the neighbouring shop M/s Tula Ram Raja Ram and showed it to one Ganeshi ji of that shop who also confirmed that it was a counterfeit note. Crowd as­sembled there and thereafter a constable arrive. The accused was found standing there and he was arrested. A case under Sections 420/467, I.P.C. was started and during investigation the case having been established, according to the prosecution, charge-sheet was submitted. Charge under Sections 489-B and 489-C, I.P.C. was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and trial started. During trial the prosecution has examined six witnesses, out of which P.W. 1 is the expert. He corroborated his report to the effect that it was a counterfeit note. The Upper half is a part of genuine currency note of of Rs. 50/- denomination while lower half comprises of a crudely drawn replica of the complementary part of the said note. P.W. 2 Virendra Kumar Agarwal is the brother of the informant, who has cor­roborated the prosecution story stating that his brother Jagdish Kumar Agarwal went to him and asked if the currency note which was with him was genuine. He was not sure and then he and Jagdish Kumar Agarwal went to the shop of Tula Ram Raja Ram. In cross-examination he has stated that after both the brothers inspected the note Jag­dish Kumar Agarwal went to the shop of Raja Ram and when he also went there and at that time he found the accused standing in his shop. P.W. 3 Jagdish Kumar has cor­roborated the story depicted in the first in­formation report. P.W. 4 Ganeshi Lal also corroborated the statement of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 that they brought the note to him to verify whether it was genuine or not. P.W. 5 is the Constable, who went to the place of the occurrence after seeing the crowd. He seized the currency note and took the ac­cused to the police- station. P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the accused ad­mitted the possession of the note but ex­pressed innocence. After considering the evidence on record the learned Judge con­victed the accused under Sections 489-B and 489-C and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 200 for the offence under Section 498-B and one year for the offence under Section 489-C, I.P.C. Sri Kamal Krishna appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in holding that the accused appellant had knowledge that the said cur­rency note was forged. He has stated that the conduct of the accused shows that he was innocent and had no knowledge that the said note was forged. In the first information report it was stated that he was arrested from the spot. P.W. 5 constable has also stated that he took the accused to the police-station after preparing recovery memo of the counterfeit note. P.W. 3 Jagdish Kumar Agarwal has stated when he was in doubt about the genuineness of the curren­cy note and he went to the contiguous shop of his brother P.W. 2, who was a medical practitioner to verify whether the said cur­rency note was genuine. He has also stated that when his brother expressed doubt he went to the shop of M/s Tula Ram Raja Ram to get confirmation. In cross examination he has stated that during the period the ac­cused was standing in the shop. Learned counsel has submitted that if the accused had any knowledge that the said note was not genuine he would have tried to flee away from the spot. This very conduct of the accused shows that he was innocent.
(3.) LEARNED counsel in this connection has referred the case of Hamid All and another v. State, AIR 1961 Tripura 46, wherein it has been held that under Sections 489-B and 489-C guilt is fastened on the ground of 'knowledge' or 'reason to believe'. But suspicion or doubt is not sufficient for fastening the liability under those Sec­tions.;