Judgment :- 1. The appellant was tried by the Court of Session, Quilon for the offences punishable under S.489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. He has been found guilty on both the counts and was sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of 5 years under S.489B and for rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under S.489C IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case in short is as follows: The appellant is a person hailing from Chavakkat. It is alleged that he had some contacts with some people in Bombay and he offered to get NOC for PW1 to go to Libiya. PW1 parted with a sum of Rs. 4000/-. However, PW1 could not get NOC and he wanted to get back the amount from the appellant. The appellant's brother-in-law one Ashraf had also some plans to go to Libiya. According to the appellant himself, his brother-in-law and PW1 went to Bombay and there they met one R.K. Ali, who was running a panshop at Bombay. The appellant, PW1 and Ashraf were at Bombay for about 2 weeks and they were not successful in getting NOC The prosecution case is that the appellant managed to obtain some U.S. dollar notes from somebody in Bombay and he returned to the native place and tried to exchange these notes. However, these notes were fake currency notes and the accused was ultimately arrested by the Customs Preventive Officer. The appellant would contend that he was to get some Rs. 8000/- from R.K. Ali in connection with the NOC arrangement and this R.K. Ali refused payment. The appellant and others insisted for immediate payment and therefore R.K. Ali gave them 11 U.S. dollar notes. The appellant thinking that they were original U.S. dollar notes obtained the same and returned to Chavakkad. The appellant would also contend that he later entrusted these notes to one Ummar for exchanging the same. The appellant also contended that he believed that the dollar notes were genuine notes and that if they were not genuine notes he was duped by R.K. Ali. 3. The appellant was found in possession of fake U. S. dollar notes. PW.5 got information of the same and he informed the matter to the superior officer at Trichur. PW.5 arrested the accused. He also informed the Superintendent of Police. 3. The appellant was found in possession of fake U. S. dollar notes. PW.5 got information of the same and he informed the matter to the superior officer at Trichur. PW.5 arrested the accused. He also informed the Superintendent of Police. Later PW.8, the ASI registered a case on the basis of Ext. P1 letter given by PW4, the Superintendent of the Customs Office, Trichur. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vadanappally took over the investigation and conducted search, but he could not find any other incriminating articles. Later the investigation was taken over by PW1, the Detective Inspector. About 11/2 months after the incident PW6 a taxi driver produced two other counterfeit dollar notes. The same were recovered by him from the seat of his car. 4. On the side of the prosecution 11 witnesses were examined. All the 11 U.S. fake dollar notes were marked as MO 1 series. There was no witness on the defence side. 5. As already pointed out the appellant admitted of having obtained these U.S. dollar notes from Bombay. The appellant would contend that he obtained the same from one R.K. Ali. R.K. Ali was summoned as a witness before the Sessions Court; but he was not examined on that day, since the appellant was not present. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the non-examination of R.K. Ali is fatal to the prosecution case. But it may be remembered that the witness appeared and was prepared to give evidence. It was because of the fault of the appellant that the witness could not be examined. Whatever be the source of this fake notes it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had these dollar notes with him. 6. The question that would arise for consideration is whether the appellant had committed offences punishable under S.489B and C of I.P.C. S.489B, deals with the offence relating to the using of forged or counterfeit coins as genuine and the offence under S.489C is in respect of possession of forged or counterfeit notes. Mere possession or use of counterfeit currency notes is not punishable; the accused must have knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were counterfeits or forged. The prosecution shall prove those ingredients. But this proof need not be necessarily by direct evidence. Mere possession or use of counterfeit currency notes is not punishable; the accused must have knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were counterfeits or forged. The prosecution shall prove those ingredients. But this proof need not be necessarily by direct evidence. The various circumstances leading to the seizure of forged notes, the manner in which the accused came into possession of these notes are important circumstances. Under S.489B it is necessary that the accused who sells or buys or receives or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency notes and bank notes must have knowledge or reason to believe that the same to be forged or counterfeit, and the ingredients of S.489C would also go to show that the accused should have been in possession of the forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit note and intending to use the same as genuine. 7. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant believed that these notes were real and genuine U. S. dollar notes issued by R. K. Ali and at no point of time the appellant thought it to be fake or counterfeit currency notes and therefore be cannot be convicted for the offence under S.489B or C of IPC. The appellant also relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Mammutty v. State of Karnataka (1979 Crl. Q 1383 AIR 1979 SC 1705), and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1982 Crl. Q 32). In the first mentioned case a rustic villager sold 3 quintals of tamarind fruits to a person whom he did not know and that person gave him a sum of Rs. 390. The accused contended that he did not know that these currency notes were counterfeit and he came to know of it for the first time when he was interrogated by the police. So, under that circumstance the Supreme Court held that there, could not be any presumption that the accused knew that the notes in his possession were counterfeit. 8. The other decision is by a single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court. That was also a case where the accused was an illiterate lady who was found in possession of a made-up 10 rupee note. 8. The other decision is by a single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court. That was also a case where the accused was an illiterate lady who was found in possession of a made-up 10 rupee note. When she tendered the note to a shop-keeper for change the shop-keeper replied that the note was not genuine. The Court held that the tendering alone of such a note to the shopkeeper was not sufficient and the prosecution should have proved that it was with dishonest intention so as to cause wrongful loss to him and that there was no collateral circumstance to prove that she bad palmed off such notes before, or that the was in possession of such notes in such large numbers and her possession for any other purpose was inexplicable. 9. The circumstances proved in this case are clearly different. Even according to the appellant he obtained the U. S. dollar notes from one R. K. Ali of Bombay. The appellant would say that R. K. Ali had received Rs. 8000/- under the pretext of arranging NOC for two persons. The appellant obtained 11 notes of hundred dollar denomination from R. K. Ali. It is difficult to believe that the appellant was under the impression that these notes were genuine notes and therefore he accepted the same. If the appellant really wanted the amount from R. K. Ali he should have insisted for payment in Indian currency. Dealing in foreign currency like U. S. dollar notes without valid permission is itself violative of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The subsequent conduct of the appellant also clearly shows that he wanted to exchange these dollar notes in a clandestine manner. At first he gave 4 notes to PW 7 and these notes later turned out to be fake notes. Few days thereafter PW2, PW3 and the appellant travelled in a taxi car and it is evident that the appellant left two dollar notes beneath the seat of the car and the same were subsequently produced by the taxi driver. This also would go to show that the appellant was aware or had reason to believe that these notes were not genuine and he somehow wanted to convert them into Indian currency by cheating. The offence therefore would squarely come within S.489B and C of IPC. 10. This also would go to show that the appellant was aware or had reason to believe that these notes were not genuine and he somehow wanted to convert them into Indian currency by cheating. The offence therefore would squarely come within S.489B and C of IPC. 10. The prosecution has satisfactorily proved that the appellant was in possession of counterfeit U. S. dollar notes and that he bad sold or attempted to sell or exchange some of these counterfeit notes to ethers. Therefore the appellant has been lightly convicted under S.489B and 489C, IPC. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years under S.489B, IPC. The appellant seems to be a first offender. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has a family consisting of 5 children and a wife and the long incarceration in the jail would only put the members of the family in extreme poverty. So, taking a lenient view, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment for 5 years under S.489B to a period of 3 years. The conviction and sentence under S.489C for a period of 3 years is confirmed. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. With the above modification in the sentence the appeal is dismissed.