Mere falsification of a document does not constitute the crime of forgery. Under our Code, sections 159 and 164, falsification or alteration of a document can only constitute the offence of forgery if it is done with one or other of the intents mentioned in the said sections 159 and 164. The intent relied upon by the prosecution in the present case as alleged in counts 1 and 2 is to defraud. Therefore in order to convict the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the object or purpose with which the alteration or falsification was made, is to defraud.
Knowledge as an element of possessing a forged currency note
This section clearly provides that where a person is charged with the offence it is essential that the prosecution must prove that the accused knew that he had in his possession the forged note which is the subject matter of the charge. It is not necessary for the prosecution to lead evidence of actual knowledge; it is sufficient if there is evidence from which knowledge of the accused may be justifiably inferred. It is only when such evidence has been led by the prosecution that “the onus lies upon the accused to prove lawful authority or excuse for his possession, a burden it would be impossible for him to discharge unless it be established that he had knowledge of the possession,”
