ORDER K.N. Srivastava, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by Sri Visheshwar Prasad Mathur, First Assistant Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, convicting the Appellant u/s 243 IPC and sentencing him to 5 years' Rule I. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: The Appellant had a liquor shop in Ghazipur town which is situated in district Fatehpur. He had his residential house close to his shop. Information was given to the police that I the Appellant was in possession of counterfeit coins which he had with him to*pass them on as genuine. On this information the house and the liquor shop of the Appellant was searched. Nothing was recovered from the shop: In one of the kothris of the house the Appellant had kept a box. He had locked it and the key of the lock was with the Appellant. The Appellant handed over the key of the lock with which it was opened. From this box 960 counterfeit coins of the denomination of 10 naiye paise and 160 coins of the denomination of 5 naiye paise were recovered, in presence of; witnesses. The recovery memo of these counterfeit coins was prepared. The Appellant was taken into custody. A case u/s 243 IPC was then registered against the Appellant. The police investigated the case and after completing the investigation challenged the Appellant. The Appellant was tried and was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. In support of its case the prosecution examined Rafiq, Ram Kishore, Sheo Lal, S.I. Alauddin and other witnesses whose statements are more or less formal in nature. 4. The Appellant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. The Appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenged the statement of Rafiq on the ground, that he was an unreliable person. Rafiq stated that he was an opium addict and that he was living at the time of the occurrence at the house of his son-in-law. Rafiq had no house of his own at Ghazipur. But from his evidence it is proved that he was living with his son-in-law from long before the occurrence. Rafiq candidly admitted that he was an opium smoker. Rafiq had no house of his own at Ghazipur. But from his evidence it is proved that he was living with his son-in-law from long before the occurrence. Rafiq candidly admitted that he was an opium smoker. On this ground the statement of Rafiq cannot be rejected specially when there is nothing on record to show that Rafiq was in any way under the influence of the police. 6. The statement of Ram Kishore was challenged on the ground that he had appeared as a witness for the police in 7 or 8 cases within two or three years. It is true that Ram Kishore had appeared as a witness for police in 7 or 8 cases within two or three years but there was nothing on record to show that the statements of Ram Kishore in the aforesaid cases were rejected or that he was disbelieved by the courts where he gave statements. This is possible that he might have seen the occurrence and therefore, he appeared as a witness on behalf of the police in those cases. Ram Kishore frankly admitted that he appeared as a witness for police in 7 or 8 cases. This indicated that he has respect for truth. Sheo Lal was the third witness of recovery. He did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He admitted in his statement that the Appellant brought pressure on him not to appear as a witness in this case. The trial court has, therefore, rightly rejected the statement of Sheo Lal. The recovery memo is Ex. Ka.1. This recovery memo bears the signature of Ram Kishore, Sheo Lal, Rafiq and one Ram Nath. The statements of Ram Kishore and Rafiq are corroborated by the statements of S.I. Alauddin. Alauddin has also thorough well stood the test of cross examination. I have not found anything in his statement on account of which his evidence could be rejected. 7. Rafiq, Ram Kishore and Alauddin stated that the Appellant provided the key with which the box was opened and this box contained the aforesaid counterfeit coins. The statements of these witnesses on the above point is corroborated by the recital in the recovery memo. Believing this evidence I, therefore, hold that the aforesaid counterfeit coins were recovered from the possession of the Appellant. The statements of these witnesses on the above point is corroborated by the recital in the recovery memo. Believing this evidence I, therefore, hold that the aforesaid counterfeit coins were recovered from the possession of the Appellant. The Appellant was in the effective control and possession of the box from which the counterfeit coins were recovered. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that besides the Appellant some other persons of his family also lived in the house and therefore, the possibility of those persons having kept the counterfeit coins in the box could not be ruled out of consideration. This argument has absolutely no force in it because the box which contained the counterfeit coins was in the exclusive possession of the Appellant and he had the effective control over it. 9. It was next argued that there was no evidence whatsoever that the Appellant knew that the coins were counterfeit and therefore, his possession of these coins was not covered u/s 243 IPC. Section 243 reads as below: Whoever fraudulently or with intent that fraud may be committed, is in possession of counterfeit coin, which is a counterfeit of Indian coin, having known at the time when he became possessed of it that it was counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. A reading of this section shows that the accused parson must be in possession of the counterfeit Indian coin. Secondly, that he knew at the time he was possessed of the counterfeit coins that they were counterfeit coins and thirdly, that he was fraudulently in possession of-those coins with intent that fraud may be committed. Counterfeit has been defined u/s 28 IPC which reads as below: "A person is said to "counterfeit" who causes one thing to resemble another thing; intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised. Explanation I.--It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact. Counterfeit has been defined u/s 28 IPC which reads as below: "A person is said to "counterfeit" who causes one thing to resemble another thing; intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised. Explanation I.--It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact. The per se possession of a counterfeit coin is, therefore, not punishable u/s 243 IPC; in order to bring home the guilt against the person who is in possession of the counterfeit coins, the prosecution must also prove that at the time he came into possession of the coins he knew that they were counterfeit and that he had been in possession of the same fraudulently and with intent that fraud may be committed. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that in the instant case there was no evidence whatsoever that the Appellant became possessed of these coins, knew that they were counterfeit coins or that he had kept them fraudulently with the intention that fraud may be committed. No direct evidence is possible to be led to prove these ingredients. They have to be inferred from the facts and other attending circumstances of each case. In the instant case the Appellant kept the counterfeit coins in packets and these packets had been kept in a locked box the key of which was with the Appellant. If the Appellant did not know that these coins were counterfeit he would not have kept them so secretly in a box. The coins had no value as legal tender and the very fact that the Appellant kept them so secretly secure in a box also proved that he had kept them fraudulently and with and intention that fraud may De committed. 10. The essential test, therefore, was as to whether the Appellant had kept these counterfeit coins knowing them to be so and with the intention to pass them on at some other later period as genuine coins. The Appellant would not have kept these counterfeit coins under lock and key if he was not aware that they were counterfeit coins and if he had no intention to pass them as genuine coins. The learned trial court observed that the counterfeiting was of a crude kind and could be detected at the very first sight. The Appellant would not have kept these counterfeit coins under lock and key if he was not aware that they were counterfeit coins and if he had no intention to pass them as genuine coins. The learned trial court observed that the counterfeiting was of a crude kind and could be detected at the very first sight. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that if the counterfeit was of such a crude nature it cannot be said to be counterfeit as defined u/s 28 of the IPC. Explanation II, to Section 28 IPC speaks that: When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely "that deception would thereby be practised." As laid down in Explanation II if the resemblance of the counterfeit is such that a person can be deceived, it shall be presumed, unless contrary is proved, that the person making the counterfeit coins intends to practise deception if the counterfeit coins resemble the genuine coin. There is nothing on record that the counterfeit coins were such that they could not be passed as genuine or they were such that no one would be deceived. Sri S.N. Mukur, Coin Expert, Government of India, was examined in this case as PW 9. He stated that the disputed coins were counterfeit coins. From the evidence on the record it is proved that the counterfeit coins resembled the genuine coins and a person could be deceived to believe that they were genuine coins. 11. In support of his case the Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the ruling Gudar Sao Vs. Emperor, AIR 1936 Patna 533 . This Gudarsao's case is different from the facts of the present case. In Gudarsao's case the counterfeit coins were part of the estate's property and were purchased at auction sale. No attempt had ever been made to pass off these coins as genuine. They were purchased in an open sale. Emperor, AIR 1936 Patna 533 . This Gudarsao's case is different from the facts of the present case. In Gudarsao's case the counterfeit coins were part of the estate's property and were purchased at auction sale. No attempt had ever been made to pass off these coins as genuine. They were purchased in an open sale. In these circumstances it was held that the mere keeping of the counterfeit coins under lock and key would not go to show that the person who kept them there had any intention to pass them as genuine coins. This ruling, therefore, does not apply to the facts of this case. Except this counterfeit coins the Appellant had not kept any genuine coin in his box. The Appellant did not give any explanation as to how he came in possession of these coins. He took shelter behind the denying of the recovery of the coins from his possession. 12. To sum up, the Appellant had kept these counterfeit coins in a box secured under lock and key. He knew that the coins were counterfeit. He has not explained as to how he came into possession of these coins and why he had kept them in his box. The facts and circumstances of the case led to the irresistible conclusion that the Appellants had kept these coins in the box to pass them on as genuine. The coins were proved to be resembling the genuine coins and there was chance of their being passed on as genuine coins. In view of the above discussion. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the appeal has no force in it. 13. I heard Learned Counsel for Sheo Lal in Miscellaneous Case No. 2912 of 1965. The order was not passed at the time of delivery of the judgment. It is not maintainable. 14. The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant is on bail. Ha will be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Miscellaneous case No. 2912 of 1965 is also dismissed. Stay order is vacated.