Judgment Honniah, J.- This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of respondents (accused 1 to 4 in the trial Court) of the offences under sections 489-A , 489-B and 489-C read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 was a resident of Uttarakosamangai in Ramnad District, A-2 was a resident of Velur Satrapatti in Dindigul Taluk, and A-3 was a resident of Salem all belonging to Tamil Nadu, A-4 was a Matadipathi of Kudali Sringeri Mutt, in the District of Shimoga. After the appeal was filed, the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted, the 4th respondent died. Therefore, we are not concerned in this appeal with the case against A-4. 2. The case for the prosecution, briefly stated is that between 21st March, 1965 and 22nd February, 1966 all the four accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10 and for that purpose they adopted various means and in fact ultimately they counterfeited large number of currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10. Under these circumstances, the prosecution alleged that they had committed offences under sections 120-B , 489-A , 489-B and 189-C of the Indian Penal Code. All these four accused were tried by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who, by his judgment dated 31st March 1969, acquitted all of them holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of conspiracy, much less the charges under sections 489-A , 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As regards the case against the accused that they conspired, during the period stated above, to counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10 the only evidence placed on record is that of P.Ws. 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17. All these witnesses no doubt have stated the various parts taken by each of the accused in order to achieve their object. The learned Sessions Judge, after scrutinising the evidence carefully, was of the view that they were accomplices and in the absence of any independent corroboration to support their version, it was not desirable to rely upon the testimony of the accomplices and in that view the disbelieved all these witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, after scrutinising the evidence carefully, was of the view that they were accomplices and in the absence of any independent corroboration to support their version, it was not desirable to rely upon the testimony of the accomplices and in that view the disbelieved all these witnesses. We have gone through the evidence of these witnesses and we have no doubt that the conclusion reached by the learned Sessions Judge is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the law on the point. 4. So far as the case against A-2 and A-3 is concerned, the only evidence relied upon by the prosecution is that at a particular point of time during the relevant period they were occupying a room in the bungalow called “Sachidananda Prasad” belonging to A-4 at Bangalore near Lalbagh, a portion of which was used as a printing press. There is no evidence worth the name that the printing press was made use of for the purpose, namely, manufacturing counterfeit currency notes. But, however, the learned State Public Prosecutor relied upon one circumstance that from the room A-2 and A-3 had occupied certain currency notes were recovered and that according to the opinion of the Expert, were found to be forged notes. 5. It is no doubt true, there is the evidence of one Subba Bhatta (P.W.11), who was the Manager of the Press, which establishes that A-2 and A-3 were occupying the room in question and from that room some forged currency notes were recovered by the Police. But at the time when the notes were recovered, it is in the evidence of the Police Officer as well as P.W.11 Subba Bhatt that A-2 and A-3 were not present. In these circumstances recovery of certain forged notes from a room which had been previously occupied by A-2 and A-3, it cannot be said that they either counterfeited the notes or they were in possession of those notes. The learned State Public Prosecutor did not seriously dispute the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge, rightly, that A-2 and A-3 had not committed any offence with which they were charged. Although A-4 is dead, the evidence so far as A-4 is concerned, is also similar to the evidence against A-2 and A-3 and therefore the acquittal of A-4 cannot, in our opinion, be said to be wrong. 6. Although A-4 is dead, the evidence so far as A-4 is concerned, is also similar to the evidence against A-2 and A-3 and therefore the acquittal of A-4 cannot, in our opinion, be said to be wrong. 6. However, the State Public Prosecutor strenuously urged that the evidence against A-1 that he was found in possession of 4508 forged notes of the denomination of Rs.10 is conclusive and that the learned Sessions Judge was wholly wrong in acquitting him of the offence punishable under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that they were not counterfeit currency notes. section 489-C reads as follows: “Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency note or banknote, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both”. 7. section 28 of the Indian Penal Code defines the expression “counterfeit” in the following terms: “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 1.-It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact. Explanation 2.-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 know it to be likely that deception would thereby be practised.” Under this section it is not necessary to show that deception actually took place. Intention to practise deception by causing one thing to resemble another is quite sufficient. It is clear from a reading of the section that the word ‘counterfeit’ does not, cannot mean an exact reproduction of the original counterfeited. The difference between the counterfeit and the original is not therefore limited to a difference existing only by reason of faulty reproduction. Intention to practise deception by causing one thing to resemble another is quite sufficient. It is clear from a reading of the section that the word ‘counterfeit’ does not, cannot mean an exact reproduction of the original counterfeited. The difference between the counterfeit and the original is not therefore limited to a difference existing only by reason of faulty reproduction. There can be counterfeiting even though the imitation is not exact and though there are differences in detail between the original and the imitation so long as the resemblance is so close that deception may thereby be practised. Reliance was placed on the evidence of P.W.14 Hanumanth Devisingh Nandedkar, who was then the Inspector of Police at Basavangudi, P.W.13 K.M. Lingam, owner of an Engineering Firm in Bangalore and P.W.9 Claude D’Souza, Supervisor and Expert in detection of forged currency and Bank-notes, who was working in the Indian Security Press at Nasik. 8. P.W.14 has deposed that on 22nd February, 1966, he got credible information that a Madrasi was moving with counterfeit currency notes and he was likely to come near Lalbagh West Gate at about 4 p.m. Therefore he went near the West Gate of Lalbagh with his staff and waited there near the bus stop to find out that person. At about 5-30 p.m. he observed A-1 sitting on a stone bench near the bus stop with a bundle tied in towel M.O. No. 5 and having kept that bundle on his lap. He went near A-1 and after questioning him and from the answers given by A-1, be suspected that that person might be the man about whom he had received information earlier. He secured panchas going along the road, among whom P.W.13 was one. Then P.W.14 asked A-1 to open the towel M.O. No. 5. After the towel was untied, according to him, he found a dealwood box marked in the case as M.O. No. 2, which had been nailed firmly. He therefore, opened that box and found therein bundles wrapped in brown paper, in which there were 4,505 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.10, which are marked as M.O.No.1. It may be mentioned here that there is slight discrepancy as to the exact number of notes found in the dealwood box. He therefore, opened that box and found therein bundles wrapped in brown paper, in which there were 4,505 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.10, which are marked as M.O.No.1. It may be mentioned here that there is slight discrepancy as to the exact number of notes found in the dealwood box. At the time when this witness seized them after counting, according to him and the panchas, there-were only 4,505 notes, but later when they were counted by P.W.9 at the Security Press at Nasik, they were in fact 4,508 notes. This, obviously, is a mistake committed by P.W.14 while counting the notes. These notes were seized and sealed under mahazar Exhibit P-46. When the person of the accused (A-1) was searched by this witness, he found a sum of Rs.61-27 (M.O. 6), which was in a purse attached to a belt, M.O. 4. This amount and the belt were also seized under the same mahazar along with a diary Exhibit P-15. After seizure, he produced the articles along with the property form before the Magistrate with a request that he may be permitted to retain them for investigation, after registering a case. The investigation was taken up by P.W.25 V. Subramanya Iyer, Inspector of Police C.I.D. Branch, who sent these sealed articles (M.O.No.1 containing 4508 notes of the denomination of Rs.10) to the Security Press at Nasik, on 28th February, 1966, which was received by P.W.9. P.W.9 has given evidence that the seals were in tact and on opening, he found 4508 notes of Rs.10 denomination, which are identified as M.O.1. 9. P.W.13 K.M. Lingam was the owner of an Engineering Firm, known as Mahalaxmi Engineering Industries, Yeshwant-pur, Bangalore. His evidence was that on 22nd February, 1966 he was returning from Jayanagar in his car and when he came near the West Gate of Lalbagh, P.W.14 stopped his car and requseted him to be a witness for the seizure of the articles that were in the possession of A-1. He has stated that at that time there was one or two other persons and in substance he has fully corroborated P.W.14. A-1 does not dispute that he was present at the relevant time at the place in question. He admits that his belt M.O. 4 and (a sum of) Rs.61-27 that were on his person were seized by P.W.14. He has stated that at that time there was one or two other persons and in substance he has fully corroborated P.W.14. A-1 does not dispute that he was present at the relevant time at the place in question. He admits that his belt M.O. 4 and (a sum of) Rs.61-27 that were on his person were seized by P.W.14. In his statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, he states thus in answer to question relating to the seizure of these articles: “It is true that I had come over here on 22nd February, 1966. I come to the bungalow of A-4, went to the Modern Lodge, drank Coffee and came to Minerva Circle. One Jeep car came there. They asked me to get in. They did not take me to the Basavangudi (Police) station. They took me to so many other places. They took me to Basavangudi Police Station on 27th Februry, 1966. I had nothing (with me) in my hands. On the previous day they took me to the bungalow of A-4. 5-6 persons assembled there. Subba Bhatta brought the dealwood box. The Inspector opened the box and counted the notes that were in it. They took them into the neighbouring room and wrote down something. I have nothing to do with it.” Earlier in his statement he has admitted that he has signed Exhibit P-9 for having seized the notes But in the trial Court this is what he has stated in this behalf “It is true that my belt M.O.4 with the money therein were seized. I do not know anything about the fake notes”. The cumulative effect of this statement before the committal Court and the trial Court is that he does not dispute his presence on 22nd February, 1966 at the place in question and the fact of recovery from him of the belt and the amount found on his person in front of the western gate of Lalbagh. The fact remains as admitted by him that when the dealwood box which he was carrying was opened, it contained the notes of the denomination of Rs.10 marked as M.O.1. The fact remains as admitted by him that when the dealwood box which he was carrying was opened, it contained the notes of the denomination of Rs.10 marked as M.O.1. His version that Subba Bhatta brought the notes cannot be true because Subba Bhatta who is examined as P.W.11 has given evidence in unequivocal terms that he was not at all present in that building on 22nd February, 1966 and when he came on the next day to the building, he learnt about the seizure of the notes from the possession of A-1. The evidence of P.Ws.13 and 14, conclusively and positively establishes that on 22nd February, 1966 at about 5-30 P.M. currency notes of the denomination of Rs.10 numbering 4508 (marked as M.O.1) were seized from the possession of A-1. 10. The next question is whether these notes were forged notes or counterfeit notes. On this question we have the evidence of the Expert, P.W.9, Claude D’Souza. He examined the notes in question and submitted his report Exhibit P-33 giving reasons and according to him these notes were forged notes but they did not bear any number. He has given several reasons to come to the conclusion that these notes were forged. He has stated that it was possible to pass off these notes as genuine ones in dim light and also in bundles. We are of the view that the evidence of P.Ws.13 and 14 taken along with the evidence of P.W.9 conclusively establishes that A-1 was found in possession of forged or counterfeit notes numbering 4508. The learnd Sessions Judge, in spite of the conclusive evidence of P.Ws.13 and 14, was in error in coming to the conclusion that the seizure of these notes from A-1 had not been proved although A-1 himself admits that at the relevant time he was present and some articles at least were seized from him under Exhibit P-46. The approach of the learned Sessions Judge in discarding the evidence of these witnesses is far from satisfactory. If he had really applied his mind properly and examined the evidence in the normal course, he would not have come to the conclusion that he has now arrived at. The approach of the learned Sessions Judge in discarding the evidence of these witnesses is far from satisfactory. If he had really applied his mind properly and examined the evidence in the normal course, he would not have come to the conclusion that he has now arrived at. Again we have got to observe here that the learned Sessions Judge was wholly wrong in spite of the evidence of P.W.9 who is an expert on this point, in holding that the notes in question are not counterfeit notes. He appears to have not applied his mind to the provisions of section 28 much less the provisions of section 463 and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution in this case has placed very satisfactory and conclusive evidence that A-1 was found in possession of notes, either counterfeit or forged ones, and that they were seized on 22nd February, 1966 under Exhibit P-46 by P.W.14 in the presence of P.W.13. 11. This takes us to the question whether A-1 possessed these notes knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine. Under section 489-C the onus lies on the prosecution to prove circumstances which lead clearly, indubitably and irresistibly to the inference that the accused had an intention to foist the currency notes on the public. The prosecution must, therefore, call relevant evidence to lay foundation for a presumption to be drawn that the accused was in possession of the notes knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine. On the facts of this rase, it has got to be said affirmatively hat the prosecution have discharged heir burden for more than one reason. To recapitaluate, the accused (A-1) was sitting on a bench with a bundle tied in a owel, in which there was dealwood box, which contained 4508 currency notes of 10 rupees denomination. These notes were proved to be forged notes. In the circumstances, therefore, in the absence of any reasonable explanation tendered by the accused, this case must give rise to the presumption that possession of such notes was for trafficking in currency notes. These notes were proved to be forged notes. In the circumstances, therefore, in the absence of any reasonable explanation tendered by the accused, this case must give rise to the presumption that possession of such notes was for trafficking in currency notes. That presumption, no doubt, is a presumpion of fact, which can be drawn from the circumstances of the case. The fact that A-1 was found in possession of such large number of notes leads to the inevitable inference that he intended to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine. This view of ours is supported by two decisions, one of Madras and another of Andhra Pradesh High Courts. 12. In Public Prosecutor v. Rowthula Kondalrao1 the accused was found in Possession of 38 counterfeit ten-rupee Currency notes, 30 of which had been tied up in a piece of cloth worn by him on his person and the remaining 8 were produced by him from a box in his house soon afterwards on being questioned by the Police. A mere look at those notes revealed that every one must have known them to be counterfeit ones. Dealing with the question whether possession of such notes was punishable under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, this is what the Court observed: “The number of counterfeit notes found in a man's possession and the circumstances in which they were so found may by themselves constitute a sufficient ground for drawing the inference that the intention was to use them as genuine or that they may be used as genuine”. and in that view of the matter, the learned Judge set aside the judgment of acquittal and convicted the accused. This view has been followed by the High Court of Andhra PradeshIn re Satyanarayana1. In that case, the accused was found to have thirty counterfeit currency notes, all of the same type. He had kept them safely locked in a steel trunk in his house with the key in his possession and had produced them before the Police in pursuance of his statement to the Police. When confronted with the large body of evidence about his possession, he denied having made the statement and produced the notes without any explanation whatsoever about his possession of the same. When confronted with the large body of evidence about his possession, he denied having made the statement and produced the notes without any explanation whatsoever about his possession of the same. On the said facts it was held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused must have known or at least must have had reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit and also had the intention of using the counterfeit currency notes as genuine or that they might be used as genuine. Similar view has been taken by the former Mysore High Court in Re Ameerjan2. 13. The story of the accused obviously being untrue and having regard to the conclusive nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding possession of large number of notes, numbering 4508, it is really impossible to conceive of any other intention than the intention of using the notes as genuine or that they may be used as genuine, and no other intention can even be suggested. In Ameerjan's case2referred to above their Lordships were dealing with a similar case and in that case they have extracted a portion of the decision of the Lahore High Court in Sher Mohomed v. Emperor3. The relevant part of the said extract is quoted below: “……The true position is that it is for the court in each case to draw any such inference as may be legitimate or reasonable in the circumstances. The question what inference from a relevant fact may be drawn as to the existence or otherwise of a fact in issue and with what degree of certainty is in each case a matter for the Judge to determine on the facts of that case and cannot be regulated by a generalisation. The outstanding fact in such cases is that the discovery of the incriminating article from a place which is hidden from public view but is pointed out by the accused unmistakably shows that the accused was in some way privy to the felony……….” 14. On examining the entire evidence we are satisfied that the prosecution have proved satisfactorily beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 has committed an offence punishable under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge in our opinion, erred in failing to draw a clear indubitable and irresistible inference from the fac:s established by the prosecution. On examining the entire evidence we are satisfied that the prosecution have proved satisfactorily beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 has committed an offence punishable under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge in our opinion, erred in failing to draw a clear indubitable and irresistible inference from the fac:s established by the prosecution. We, therefore, allow this appeal in part and set aside the judgement of acquittal of A-1 and convict him for an offence under section 489-C and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. So far as the appeal against A-2 and A-3 is concerned, it is dismissed. The appeal against A-4 abates as he is dead. The order regarding the disposal of property made by the learned Sessions Judge stands. S.V.S. ----- Appeal allowed in part; A1, convicted and sentenced.