Order: Five bags of rice purchased at Ranipet in North Arcot District, were transported through the T.V.S. lorry on the 22nd of May, 1966 under cover of a permit Exhibit P-1 purporting to have been issued by the District Supply Officer, North Arcot, one Mr.Srinivasan. P.W.1 who was in charge of the checkpost at Kannamangalam, suspected Exhibit P-1 to be a spurious permit. He unloaded the bags seized the permit and. then sent a report to the Tahsildar. Investigation followed and P.W. 21, the Inspector attached to the Vigilance Cell, detected that the permit was a spurious one not issued by the District Supply Officer. P.W.7 the broker who had purchased these bags on behalf of the persons who actually transported them, pointed out the house of this petitioner. M.O. 4 box was opened with the key produced by this petitioner. M.O.No.6 (forms), M.Os. Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Government seals), M.O. No. 11 (rubber stamp for the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Arkonam), M.O.No. 12 (block of the Taluk Office at Cheyyar), M.O.No. 13 (facsimile of Mr. Srinivasan), and M.O. No. 16 (another rubber stamp of the Taluk Officer, Wallajah) were found in this box. M.O.No. 15 series (cash of Rs.56,190) also were in it. These items were seized under the search-list Exhibit P-23. The petitioner was charged along with one Subramaniam (accused No. 1) for offences under sections 466, 468, 471, 420 and 474 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore, convicted them under sections 466, 468, 471, 420, 473 and 474, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 300 on each count (the sentence to run concurrently). On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge at Vellore, confirmed the conviction and sentence impose on the first accused under sections 466, 468, 473 and 474, Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentences on both the accused for offences under sections 471 and 420, Indian Penal Code, were set aside. The conviction of the second accused under section 474 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code, together with the sentences imposed on him, were confirmed by him. The petitioner in this revision canvasses the correctness of this conviction. 2. The Courts below have found that the permit Exhibit P-1 is a spurious one. The conviction of the second accused under section 474 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code, together with the sentences imposed on him, were confirmed by him. The petitioner in this revision canvasses the correctness of this conviction. 2. The Courts below have found that the permit Exhibit P-1 is a spurious one. The further finding is that the first accused had forged the signature of the District Supply Officer in Exhibit P-1. With this finding, the first accused has been convicted for offences under sections 466 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner viz., the second accused stands acquitted of these charges, because his hand-writing was not found in any part of the permit Exhibit P-1. The further finding is that the counterfeit forms and seals were made only by the first accused and as such he has been convicted for offences under sections 473 and 474, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the petitioner for the offence under section 473 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code, observing that there is no evidence connecting him either with the making of the forged document Exhibit P-1 or with the making of the forged document forms (M.O.No. 6 series) and the various rubber stamp seals. But, he has confirmed the conviction under section 474, Indian Penal Code, because M.O.No. 2 series, and M.Os.Nos.6 to 14 and 16 were recovered from the box M.O.No. 4, which was opened with the key produced by him. 3. Section 474, Indian Penal Code, punishes possession of any document, knowing the same to be forged and with the intention that the same shall fraud-lently or dishonestly be used as genuine. Possession implies control and to be criminal it must be exclusive. Admittedly the house belongs to the father of this petitioner. The father was present at the time of the search. A copy of the search-list has been served only on him. M.O.No. 4 box was found in his house and this box contained documents relating to the father. Two house-tax receipts in his name were found in this box. Receipt for the payment of sales-tax in the name of the petitioner’s father was also in it. So also the sales tax assessment order. The property tax demand notice issued to the father of the petitioner was also there. Besides these documents, the seals and forms were found in it. Receipt for the payment of sales-tax in the name of the petitioner’s father was also in it. So also the sales tax assessment order. The property tax demand notice issued to the father of the petitioner was also there. Besides these documents, the seals and forms were found in it. Thus we see that documents relating to the petitioners father were found in this box. This indicates that the ownership of the box was with the father. The only piece of evidence against the petitioner is that the tiger lock in this box was opened with the key produced by him. D.W. 1 as sworn that this key was produced by the father. The evidence does not establish beyond doubt that the petitioner was in exclusive possession of the counterfeit seals etc., with the necessary knowledge. The onus of proving such knowledge and exclusive possession is on the prosecution, and apart from the evidence that the key was produced by the petitioner, there is no other evidence or circumstances to indicate that the petitioner possessed the counter-feit seals, etc., with the required knowledge. The circumstances that the box contained several papers exclusively relating to the petitioner’s father, establishes the ownership of the box with the latter and not with the petitioner. Possession connotes something more than mere knowledge of the presence of the articles in it. The petitioner has been acquitted of the major charges like forgery, etc. His conviction is only for offence under section 474, Indian Penal Code viz., possession of the counter-feit seals. Exclusive possession of these seals with the necessary knowledge has not been established by the prosecution. Both the conviction and sentence are set saide. The petitioner is acquitted. The revision is allowed. V.S. ----- Petition allowed.