Order.- There were two accused before the trial Court. Both of them were convicted under section 489-C, Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine Rs. 10 in defaul-to suffer a further period of ten days rigorous imprisonment. Against this convicttion and sentence, an appeal was carried to the Court of Sessions, West Godavari and the appeal was dismissed. The case of the prosecution was that A-1 brought one hundred rupee note and gave it to P.W. 1 and asked for change. P.W. 1 suspected that it was a counterfeit note and, therefore, he called P.W. 2 who was sitting in his shop and asked him to examine the note. He also suspected it to be counterfeit and then both of them took A-1 to the Police Station. There a report was given under Exhibit P-1 and the note (M.O. 1) was seized. Thereafter it appears that A-1, on interrogation, told the police that he had received this note from A-2 and he promised to show the house where A-2 lived. Then A-1, along with the Police party, went to the village Achanta and pointed out the house where A-2 lived. The Police had also picked up the persons who were to act as mediators. When the party arrived at the house of A-2, he was sitting in front of the verandah of the house. The police party went inside the house and searched it. In a room situated on the southern side of the central hall of the house, a wooden box (M.O. 2) was found. It was opened by the Police in the presence of the Panchayatdars and a bundle of eighty-seven notes, alleged to be counterfeit of hundred rupee denomination was found. A search list was also prepared and A-2 was arrested and, after the investigation was completed, the accused were accordingly charge-sheeted. It appears that A-1 after his conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge, did not take any further action in the matter. A search list was also prepared and A-2 was arrested and, after the investigation was completed, the accused were accordingly charge-sheeted. It appears that A-1 after his conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge, did not take any further action in the matter. But, A-2 has come up in revision before this Court and it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for him that the house, which is alleged to belong to the petitioner, a part of it was leased to one Nekkanti Ramamurthy, that the box from which the notes were recovered was itself not locked and the Police failed to prepare a list in which the whole of the property or articles that were found in the box were shown. He brings to my notice the evidence of P.W. 4 who is a mediator, in which he has definitely stated that one rough book which was also torn was found in the box while P.W. 6, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who led the police party, has stated that there was no book in the box nor has it been mentioned in the list of articles seized that there was a notebook. From this fact, he wants the Court todraw an inference that the book which was found in the box really belonged to Nekkanti Ramamurthy, the suppression of which by the Police should be taken adversely against the prosecution case. The mediator (P.W. 4) also stated that neither the box was locked nor the middle southern room was locked. In view of the evidence of the mediator (P.W. 4) I think the police has acted in a manner which leaves some room for doubt. It was incumbent upon the police to have prepared a list in which they should have noted every bit of article that was found in the box. It has also come in evidence to which P.W. 8 subscribes that the petitioner had rented a portion of lis house to Nekkanti Ramamurthy, and actually the room was locked and was in possession of Ramamurthy at the time when the search was made. This shows that the house was not in the exclusive possession of the petitioner. P.W. 4 has also stated that the petitioner was leasing a portion of his house. This shows that the house was not in the exclusive possession of the petitioner. P.W. 4 has also stated that the petitioner was leasing a portion of his house. In view of this evidence, I think the prosecution has not proved clinchingly that the notes that were found in die box were in the exclusive possession of A-2 or that he had a conscious possession of these notes. Besides the prosecution has to prove, before a person car be convicted of the offence under section 489-C, Indian Penal Code, that the person knowingly or having reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit had kept in his possession and that the intention was to use the same as genuine or that they may be used as genuine. On this aspect also, the prosecution has not brought on record any satisfactory evidence. The learned Counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor has brought to my notice a case reported in Public Prosecutor v. Kondal Rao1, in which the learned Judge held that the number of notes found in the possession of a person (in that case, thirty-eight counterfeit currency notes were found) could reasonably give rise to an inference that the person had the knowledge and intention to use them as genuine. The facts of that case were quite different. The accused in that case admitted the possession of the counterfeit notes. His plea was that he wanted to foist those notes on his enemy and, in these circumstances, the only reasonable inference was as held by the learned Judge. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also cited a case reported in Ragho Saran v. The State2. In that particular case, the person of the accused was searched and the police recovered two currency notes from the folds of his dhoti which the accused was wearing. The learned Judges, in the circumstances of the case held that the accused though was found in possession of the forged notes but the prosecution had failed to bring any evidence on record to show that the accused has intended to use them as genuine or that they might beused as genuine and as the essential ingredient for proving the offence under section 489-C, being absent, the accused were acquitted. In this particular case, firstly the prosecution, in myview, has failed to prove that the box from which the notes were recovered belonged to the petitioner. Even if it is to be accepted that the notes found therein belonged to the petitioner, there is no evidence to hold that he intended to use them as genuine. I, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the petitioner. The revision petition is allowed. The amount of fine, if paid, will be refunded to the petitioner. The order of confiscation and destruction will stand. A.B.K. ----- Revision allowed; Petitioner acquitted.