JUDGMENT Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J. - This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted for the offences under Section 489(b) and 489(c) of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and seven years respectively for each offence and fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence with default imprisonment period of three months. 2. The prosecution case is that on 30.06.2006 the appellant went to Bank of Baroda, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru for depositing Rs.49,900/- to his account, and in the bundle of notes tendered by him at the counter, there were 14 counterfeit notes which were detected by the cashier. He reported the same to the Manager of the Bank, who in turn reported the same to the police. Thus the appellant came to be chargesheeted. 3. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses and produced 14 documents, Exs.P1 to P14, and 14 material objects (MO1 to MO14-being counterfeit notes) to prove its case. The appellant also examined one witness from his side as DW-1 and produced 3 documents, Exs.D1 to D3. Appreciating the evidence, in order to hold the appellant guilty of the offences, the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was aware that he was in possession of fake notes and in spite of that he tried to deposit the same in the Bank. 4. Sri S.G.Bhagavan, learned counsel for the appellant has urged three grounds. The first ground that he has taken is, that the trial Court has clearly erred in convicting the accused for the offences under Section 489(b) and (c) of IPC though the charge was for Section 489(e) of IPC. He pointed out from the paper book that the charges were framed for 489(b) and 489(c) and it was his argument in this regard that there is nothing on record indicating as to on what day the charges were altered. Therefore recording of conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 489(b) and 489(c) is bad. 5. The second ground that he has taken is that the evidence led by the prosecution itself does not prove that the appellant was aware that in the bundle of notes he carried to the Bank, there were counterfeit notes. Therefore recording of conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 489(b) and 489(c) is bad. 5. The second ground that he has taken is that the evidence led by the prosecution itself does not prove that the appellant was aware that in the bundle of notes he carried to the Bank, there were counterfeit notes. The moment the cashier brought to the notice of accused that 14 notes were fake, he reacted immediately that he had withdrawn the money sometime back from ING Vysya Bank and he had brought the same money for making deposit. The material witnesses PW1 and PW2 have admitted in the cross examination about the immediate reaction made by the appellant in the bank itself. Even while answering to the questions put to him by the trial Court under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he gave the same answer. He also examined his employer as DW1 who has given evidence that he had sent the appellant to ING Vysya Bank to encash a self cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- given to him by his customer and after withdrawal of the amount by the appellant, he asked him to keep Rs.50,000/- to himself towards incentive which was due to him. Therefore it is proved that the appellant withdrew money from the ING Vysya Bank and kept it in his house for sometime. The same money was sought to be deposited at Bank of Baroda. The appellant did not know that in the bundle of notes given to him at ING Vysya Bank, there were counterfeit notes. The requirement of Section 489(b) and 489(c) of IPC is that the accused should have knowledge that he had in his possession counterfeit currency notes and that intentionally he tried to traffic in such notes. If intention or knowledge is not established, conviction cannot be recorded. The prosecution evidence does not establish this aspect and rather there is probability in the case put forwarded by the appellant. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. 6. The third ground that he urged was that the prosecution relies on the evidence of an expert examined as PW4. Ex.P8 is the report given by him. His opinion is that MO1 to 14 are counterfeit notes, but his opinion is not supported by reasons. Expert's opinion without reasons cannot be based to hold conviction of appellant. 6. The third ground that he urged was that the prosecution relies on the evidence of an expert examined as PW4. Ex.P8 is the report given by him. His opinion is that MO1 to 14 are counterfeit notes, but his opinion is not supported by reasons. Expert's opinion without reasons cannot be based to hold conviction of appellant. The trial Court has committed an error in accepting the evidence of PW4. He therefore submitted that the judgment of the trial Court should be set-aside and appellant acquitted. He has relied upon some rulings in support of his arguments which will be referred to later. 7. Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader met the argument of Sri S.G.Bhagavan by arguing that the appellant withdrew the money from ING Vysya Bank on 17.06.2006 and that he went to Bank of Baroda, Malleshwaram on 30.06.2006 for making deposit. That means in between these two dates he had the money with him and he had kept the money in his house. It is not his case that immediately after withdrawing the money on 17.06.2006, he came to Bank of Baroda for making deposit. For this reason probability in his defence cannot be inferred, but on the other hand the prosecution has established the fact that the appellant was in conscious possession of the counterfeit notes which he had mixed with other genuine currency notes for depositing into the Bank. The immediate reaction made by the appellant in the bank is of no use, Ex.P13 shows that appellant was very much aware that he had fake notes with him and tried to deposit the same at Bank of Baroda. The evidence given by PW1 and PW2 has not been impeached. PW4 has not been cross examined. In these circumstances, the trial Court is justified in holding that the prosecution was able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is devoid of merits and it should be dismissed. 8. As regards the first point of argument of Sri S.G.Bhagavan, it is to be stated that the charges were altered by the trial Court at the time of arguments. In para 9 of the impugned judgment, there is a reference to this. The appeal is devoid of merits and it should be dismissed. 8. As regards the first point of argument of Sri S.G.Bhagavan, it is to be stated that the charges were altered by the trial Court at the time of arguments. In para 9 of the impugned judgment, there is a reference to this. Having noticed that charge had not been framed properly, charges were reframed for the offences under Section 489(b) and 489(c) instead of 489(e) of IPC with the consent of the public prosecutor and the defence counsel. It is also recorded that the public prosecutor as also the defence counsel submitted that recording further evidence on the altered charges was not necessary. This being the background for alteration of charge, I do not think the argument in this regard requires any further discussion. 9. The second and third points of arguments of Sri S.G.Bhagavan are now taken up. Before discussing these two points, given a look at the evidence, both oral and documentary available on record, what is found is that PW1 was the Manager of Bank of Baroda. He has deposed that the appellant came to his branch for depositing money to his account and in the bundle containing hundred currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination, 14 fake notes were detected by the cashier. This was brought to the notice of the appellant who said at that time that he had withdrawn the money from another bank and therefore there was no possibility of fake notes being there in the bundle of currency notes given to him by the bank from where he withdrew the money. He has given evidence with regard to lodging a complaint as per Ex.P.1. He identified the counterfeit notes as MO1 to MO14. 10. Pw2 was the cashier at Bank of Baroda and his evidence is that he detected 14 fake notes in the bundle that the appellant had brought for making deposit. He has stated that immediately he informed it to the Bank Manager i.e., PW1 and also about appellant stating that he was not aware that the bundle contained the counterfeit notes as he had withdrawn the money from another bank. 11. Pw3 is a witness to Mahazar drawn as per Ex.P7 at Bank of Baroda, Malleshwaram Branch. He has stated that immediately he informed it to the Bank Manager i.e., PW1 and also about appellant stating that he was not aware that the bundle contained the counterfeit notes as he had withdrawn the money from another bank. 11. Pw3 is a witness to Mahazar drawn as per Ex.P7 at Bank of Baroda, Malleshwaram Branch. PW4 was working at Reserve Bank of India, Mysuru and his deposition is that on the request of the Malleshwaram police, he subjected MO1 to MO14 for examination and he found them to be fake. Ex.P8 is his report. PW5 is Assistant Sub-Inspector, whose evidence is that he handed over MO1 to MO14 to the Reserve Bank of India, Mysuru for examination. PW6 is the Police Inspector who received report as per Ex.P1 from PW1 and held investigation. PW7 was an employee of ING Vysya Bank and he was examined by the prosecution to prove that when the appellant went to ING Vysya Bank on 17.06.2006 for withdrawing the money, only genuine currency notes were given to him. He has not supported the prosecution case by failing to identify the appellant and recollect some of the events that the prosecution wanted to prove from him. However he has admitted when cross examined by the public prosecutor that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had been withdrawn by presentation of a self cheque drawn by a firm called Green Bankers. 12. Dw1 is a defence witness examined by the appellant, he was the proprietor of the firm where the appellant was employed. He has deposed that he asked the appellant to encash a self cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by the Green Bankers and to make payment of Rs.50,000/- to a company called Rainbow Electricals by Demand Draft and retain Rs.50,000/- towards incentive that was due to be paid to him. 13. Re-Appreciation of evidence shows that the appellant does not dispute having gone to Bank of Baroda Malleshwaram Branch for depositing Rs.49,900/-. He does not dispute detection of 14 counterfeit notes. Therefore the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to this extent cannot be disbelieved. Opinion of PW4 is that MO1 to MO14 are counterfeit notes. Since this witness was not cross examined by the defence counsel, his evidence that MO1 to MO14 are counterfeit has to be accepted. He does not dispute detection of 14 counterfeit notes. Therefore the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to this extent cannot be disbelieved. Opinion of PW4 is that MO1 to MO14 are counterfeit notes. Since this witness was not cross examined by the defence counsel, his evidence that MO1 to MO14 are counterfeit has to be accepted. It is true that any opinion that an expert gives must be supported by reasons which may help the adverse party to cross examine the expert effectively if at all the report is disputable. If the defence does not cross examine the expert at all, there is no use in making it a point of argument in the appeal. Therefore I do not find that this ground deserves consideration. 14. However examined whether the prosecution has been able to establish the essential requirement of Sections 489(b) and (c) of IPC, the conclusions that may be reached now are somewhat different from the conclusions given by the trial Court. It appears that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence, especially that of PW1 and PW2 correctly. It has misinterpreted Ex.P13. No doubt PW1 and PW2 say that in the bundle of notes of Rs.500/- denomination tendered by the appellant at the time of making deposit, there were 14 counterfeit notes, which the appellant also does not dispute. The investigation officer PW6 has routinely held investigation without applying mind whether the appellant had conscious possession of the fake notes with him. In the examination in chief itself both PW1 and PW2 have stated that immediately after detection of the counterfeit notes, it was brought to the notice of the appellant and to this he reacted that since he had withdrawn money from another bank, the bundle given to him at that bank could not contain fake notes and that he did not know that MO1 to MO14 were fake. In the cross examination it has been elicited from PW2 what the appellant told him that he had withdrawn money about 13 days ago from ING Vysya Bank and that he had brought the very same notes for making deposit. In the cross examination it has been elicited from PW2 what the appellant told him that he had withdrawn money about 13 days ago from ING Vysya Bank and that he had brought the very same notes for making deposit. PW6 has stated in the examination in chief that the appellant wrote a letter to the Manager of ING Vysya Bank stating that in the bundle of 100 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination withdrawn by him on 17.06.2006, there were 14 fake notes and they were detected when he took that bundle for making deposit at Bank of Baroda and requested the Manager of ING Vysya Bank to take further action in this regard. In the cross examination of PW6 it has been elicited from him that nobody would try to deposit fake notes into bank. Therefore from these answers given by the witnesses, the inference that can be drawn is that since the earliest point of time, i.e., soon after the detection of counterfeit notes, stand of the appellant is consistent that he was not aware that the bundle of notes he had taken to Bank of Baroda for deposit purpose, contained counterfeit notes. The trial Court has lost this aspect of the matter. 15. With reference to Ex.P13, the trial Court has held that at 1.40pm on 17.06.2006 itself i.e., the day when the appellant withdrew the money from ING Vysya Bank, he came to know that there were fake notes in the bundle. It is held by the trial Court that the letter as per Ex.P13 was given by the appellant to the Manager of the ING Vysya Bank stating that the bundle contained 14 fake notes and an endorsement was made on the very letter by a Bank official that there were no fake notes in the cash disbursed to him. It is the observation of the trial court that having made his complaint on 17.06.2006 itself and seeing the endorsement thus made by a bank official, he had kept the money in his house till 30.06.2006. The conclusion of the trial Court therefore is that this shows knowledge on the part of the appellant not only of possessing the counterfeit currency notes but also of trafficking them, and thus offences under Section 489(b) and 489(c) of IPC would get established. 16. The conclusion of the trial Court therefore is that this shows knowledge on the part of the appellant not only of possessing the counterfeit currency notes but also of trafficking them, and thus offences under Section 489(b) and 489(c) of IPC would get established. 16. Ex.P13 actually shows that the appellant did not make that letter to the Manager of ING Vysya Bank on 17.06.2006 at 1.40pm, it was on 30.06.2006, that he addressed that letter to the Manager of ING Vysya Bank for taking action as in the bundle of notes given to him when he withdrew the money on 17.06.2006, there were 14 counterfeit notes. In this letter he has clearly written that on 17.06.2006 he withdrew an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by presenting a self cheque issued by the Green Bankers and that when he remitted Rs.49,900/- at Bank of Baroda on that day i.e., 30.06.2006, it was brought to his notice that there were 14 counterfeit notes. It is not understandable as to on what basis the trial Court could reach a conclusion that the appellant made this letter on 17.06.2006 itself. 17. Therefore the inferences that can be drawn from the prosecution evidence itself, leaving aside the evidence of DW1 for a moment, are that since the time of detection of counterfeit notes at Bank of Baroda on 30.06.2006, the appellant has been consistent in his stand that he was not aware that the bundle of notes he had taken for making deposit contained 14 counterfeit notes. Even at the stage of answering to question put to him by the court under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has given the same answer. If evidence of DW1 is considered, it lends support to the appellant's defence. There are infirmities in the prosecution evidence itself. It is not possible to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant consciously possessed the notes knowing them to be counterfeit. 18. Now if reference is made to the rulings cited by the appellant's counsel, in the case of Mummutti vs. State of Karnataka, (1979) AIR SC 1705 , what is held is that if the notes were of such a nature that a mere look at them would convince anybody that it was counterfeit, a presumption can be reasonably drawn. 18. Now if reference is made to the rulings cited by the appellant's counsel, in the case of Mummutti vs. State of Karnataka, (1979) AIR SC 1705 , what is held is that if the notes were of such a nature that a mere look at them would convince anybody that it was counterfeit, a presumption can be reasonably drawn. But if the prosecution has not put any specific question to the appellant in order to find out whether the accused knew the notes of such a nature, it is impossible to sustain the conviction. Therefore what is held that knowledge of possession of counterfeit notes is necessary to convict an accused. 19. In the case of Umashanker vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) AIR SC 3074 it is held in para 8 as: 8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Sections 489B and 489C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency-notes or bank-notes are forged or counterfeit". Without the afore-mentioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489B of I.P.C. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489C in the absence of the mens rea, noted above. No material is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant had the requisite mens rea. The High Court, however, completely missed this aspect The learned trial judge on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 that they were able to make out that currency note alleged to have been given to P.W. 4, was fake "presumed" such a mens rea. On the date of the incident the appellant was said to be 18 years old student. On the facts of this case the presumption drawn by the trial court is not warranted under Section 4 of the Evidence Act. Further it is also not shown that any specific question with regard to the currency-noted being fake on counterfeit was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. On the facts of this case the presumption drawn by the trial court is not warranted under Section 4 of the Evidence Act. Further it is also not shown that any specific question with regard to the currency-noted being fake on counterfeit was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. On these facts we have no option but to hold that the charges framed under Sections 489B and 489C are not proved. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Sections 489B and 489C of I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charges [see: M. Mammutti Vs. State of Karnataka] 20. This Court in the case of Anandagouda vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.2805/2012) by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umashankar, has taken the view that unless the accused has the knowledge that the notes are fake, conviction cannot be recorded. 21. Therefore from the foregoing discussion, it is to be held that the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained. There is no proper appreciation of evidence. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the probability in the defence is worthy of acceptance. Appellant deserves acquittal. 22. Another important aspect is that the trial court has failed to pass any order for disposal of material objects as envisaged under section 452 of Cr.P.C. 23. Hence appeal is allowed, judgment of the trial Court is set-aside and appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 489(b) and 489(c) of IPC. 24. Since MO1 to MO14 are counterfeit notes, the trial court shall dispose of the same in accordance with Rule 17(d) of Chapter X of the Criminal Rules of Practice.