SURYA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 2/8/1979 passed by the then learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Session Trial No. 124 of 1976 State v. Gorakh Nath Singh and another convicting the appellant under section 489b, I. P. C. , and sentencing him to two years Rigbrous Imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that the complainant Mohammed Abbas was posted as a Senior Booking Clerk at the Railway Booking Office, Ballia and was working as such on 15. 9. 1975. He was booking 293. UP train. A passenger named Dhaneshwar son of Shiv Nachan resident of village Jigani, P. S. Garwal, District Ballia demanded one ticket for Higguani and. gave him a twenty rupee currency note bearing No. U/53 892120. He asked Dhaneshwar where he got this currency note. In reply Dhaneshwar said that another passenger named Gorakh Nath Singh son of Ram Bahadur of village Jigani, P. S. Garwal, District Ballia had given him that note to purchase the ticket for Sigguni. Gorakh Nath Singh was standing behind him. Dhaneshwar and Gorakh Nath Singh were caught hold If with the help of one Chhotkan Ram, another Booking Clerk at about 11. 30 A. M. The accused persons and the above currency note were sent through a G. R. P. Constable named Shiv Shanker Yadav, who was then on duty, to the police station In charge G. R. P. Bahia. A complaint was lodged against the accused persons there. On the basis of that complaint, a chik report was prepared. An entry in the General Diary was made and a case was registered against the accused persons. After the registration of the case, it was entrusted to the then Sub-Inspector Noor Mohammad for investigation, on the completion of which he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined the complainant Mohamad Abbas P. W. 1, Chhotkan Ram P. W. 2, Jai Ram P. W. 3, Noor Mohamad P. W. 4 and Ram Dhan Prasad P. W. 5 and relied upon certain documents in support of its case. ( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. They have also pleaded ignorance about the alleged currency note. ( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. They have also pleaded ignorance about the alleged currency note. Gorakh Nath Singh has, however, stated that the currency note was given to him by one Narendra Singh, who has his relation, in his village to get a ticket purchased for him and that he (Gorakh Nath Singh) had given that currency note to the co-accused Dhaneshwar for that purpose. Narendra Singh could not, however, be subsequently available near the railway station. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the co-accused Dhaneshwar, but convicted Gorakhnath Singh under section 489b, I. P. C. and sentenced him vide his impugned judgment and order referred to above. Aggrieved, the accused-appellant preferred this appeal against the same. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The charged framed against the accused appellant is that on 15. 8. 1975 at about 11. 30 A. M. at the booking window of North-Eastem Railway Station, Ballia used as genuine a counterfeit currency- note of Rs. 20/- knowing or having reason to believe the same to be counterfeit and thereby committed offence punishable under section 489b of the Indian Penal Code. Section 489b reads as under:489b. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or banknotes, whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any, other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. ( 7 ) THERE is not an iota of evidence on record that the accused Gorakh Nath Singh had used as genuine the disputed currency-note knowing or having reason Lo believe the same to be counterfeit. It is on this ground that the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that the conviction cannot be sustained. His con ten Lion appears to be correct. ( 8 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 489b, I. P. C. He is on bail. His con ten Lion appears to be correct. ( 8 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 489b, I. P. C. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. He need not surrender. Appeal allowed. .