ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, in C.C. No.297 of 2005, by judgment dated 19.05.2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 465 , 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The said judgment was carried in appeal before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-III, Manjeri, in Crl. Appeal No.161 of 2010, wherein, by judgment dated 11.10.2012, the conviction and sentence were partly modified. The revision petitioner is the first accused in the case. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted by the courts below. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused No.1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention, forged a motor vehicle driving licence by affixing a fabricated signature and seal purportedly belonging to the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Meenampakkam, in Tamil Nadu. It is alleged that the said forged licence was thereafter used by the first accused as a genuine document by producing the same before the police authorities at Manjeri in connection with Crime No.560 of 2003 registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC . On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the accused were proceeded against for offences punishable under Sections 465 , 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC . 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and marked Exts.P1 to P5. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence on record. The accused denied all such circumstances and pleaded innocence. Thereafter, they were called upon to enter upon their defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support of their case. However, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 4. The accused denied all such circumstances and pleaded innocence. Thereafter, they were called upon to enter upon their defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support of their case. However, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 4. Upon an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing both sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the first accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 465 , 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC and convicted him thereunder. Consequently, separate sentences were imposed on him for the offences for which he was convicted. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted by the trial court. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, the first accused preferred Crl. Appeal No.161 of 2010 before the Additional Sessions Court, Manjeri. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), Manjeri, partly allowed the appeal and modified the findings as well as the sentence imposed by the trial court. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC were set aside. However, the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 471 was confirmed. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed under alone were sustained. 6. Heard Smt. Shibili Naha, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Anima M., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. The records were also perused. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that the conviction recorded against him is unsustainable in law and on facts. According to the learned counsel, the trial court as well as the appellate court proceeded on assumptions and conjectures without there being sufficient legal evidence to establish the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. It was argued that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the revision petitioner had knowledge of the fact that the driving licence in his possession was a forged document. It was argued that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the revision petitioner had knowledge of the fact that the driving licence in his possession was a forged document. In the absence of proof regarding such knowledge or reason to believe that the document was forged, the requisite mens rea necessary to constitute an offence under Section 471 IPC cannot be attributed to the accused. It was therefore submitted that the essential ingredients required to attract the offence punishable under are conspicuously absent in the present case and, consequently, the impugned judgment warrants interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court, upon a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, concurrently found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC . According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the findings recorded in this case are based on legally admissible evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or impropriety warranting interference by this Court in revision. It was therefore contended that the impugned judgment calls for no interference. 9. A careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would show that the main challenge is directed against the conviction recorded under Section 471 IPC . The specific contention raised is that both the trial court and the appellate court found the accused guilty of the said offence, notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the essential ingredients constituting an offence under . According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence capable of proving that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the licence allegedly used by him was a forged document. 10. According to the learned counsel, the consistent case of the first accused is that he had obtained the driving licence through an agent, who is the second accused in this case and that, at no point of time, he was aware that the licence was forged or fabricated. The contention is that the mere possession or production of a document which is subsequently found to be forged would not, by itself, attract criminal liability under Section 471 IPC . The contention is that the mere possession or production of a document which is subsequently found to be forged would not, by itself, attract criminal liability under Section 471 IPC . While considering the said contention, it is worthwhile to refer to of the , which reads thus: "471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.— Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record." A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that mere possession of a forged document, or even its use for any purpose, would not ipso facto attract the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC . To bring home a charge under the said provision, the prosecution must establish not only that the document in question is forged and that the accused used it as a genuine document, but also that such use was fraudulent or dishonest and that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the document was forged. The element of mens rea is thus an indispensable ingredient of the offence. Therefore, the prosecution is under a legal obligation to establish, through cogent and convincing evidence, that the accused fraudulently or dishonestly used the forged document as genuine with the requisite knowledge or belief regarding its forged nature. 11. In the case at hand, the consistent stand taken by the accused from the very inception is that he was wholly unaware of the fact that the driving licence in his possession was a forged one. His specific case is that he had obtained the licence through an intermediary, the second accused, and that he had no reason to suspect its genuineness at any point of time. 12. While appreciating the aforesaid contention, it is pertinent to note that, apart from accused No.1, who is the revision petitioner herein, two other persons were also arrayed as accused in the present case. Among them, accused No.2 was admittedly an agent engaged in facilitating the procurement of driving licences, while accused No.3 was allegedly associated with him. The prosecution case itself appears to suggest that accused No.2 had a role in procuring the disputed licence. Among them, accused No.2 was admittedly an agent engaged in facilitating the procurement of driving licences, while accused No.3 was allegedly associated with him. The prosecution case itself appears to suggest that accused No.2 had a role in procuring the disputed licence. However, both accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted as the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish their involvement in the alleged forgery. The fact that the agent was arrayed as an accused lends support to the defence contention that the accused had obtained the licence through an intermediary. Be that as it may, both the trial court and the appellate court concurrently found that accused No.1 was not the person responsible for forging the disputed driving licence. The conviction ultimately sustained against him was only for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC , namely, using a forged document as genuine. 13. As already discussed, the prosecution, in order to secure a conviction under Section 471 IPC , is required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used the forged document as genuine with knowledge or reason to believe that it was forged and that such use was fraudulent or dishonest. In the present case, the defence consistently maintained that the accused was unaware of the forged nature of the driving licence. Significantly, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence on record from which it can reasonably be inferred that the accused had knowledge of, or reason to believe, the forged nature of the document. The prosecution has not succeeded in establishing any circumstance indicating that the accused was privy to the alleged forgery or that he consciously used the document despite being aware of its forged character. 14. It is true that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the driving licence produced by the accused is a forged document. However, the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the accused was in possession of the said document knowing, or having reason to believe, that it was a forged licence. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be inferred that the accused had knowledge of, or reason to believe, the forged nature of the document. 15. To constitute an offence under Section 471 IPC , it is not sufficient merely to prove that the document used by the accused was forged. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be inferred that the accused had knowledge of, or reason to believe, the forged nature of the document. 15. To constitute an offence under Section 471 IPC , it is not sufficient merely to prove that the document used by the accused was forged. The prosecution must further establish that the accused used the document as genuine with knowledge or reason to believe that it was forged and that such use was fraudulent or dishonest. In the present case, there is no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish the requisite mens rea on the part of the accused. In such circumstances, the essential ingredient of knowledge, which forms the foundation of the offence under , remains unproved. Consequently, it cannot be held that the accused fraudulently or dishonestly used the document as a genuine one. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, can never take the place of legal proof. Therefore, in the absence of cogent and legally admissible evidence establishing the requisite knowledge and fraudulent or dishonest intention, the conviction of the accused under cannot be sustained. 16. I am not unmindful of the fact that the acquittal of the second accused, the agent, does not automatically lead to the acquittal of the possessor of the license. Rather, it weakens the prosecution case regarding the accused’s knowledge and strengthens the probability of his explanation that he innocently obtained the driving licence through an intermediary. Therefore, it is liable to be held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had knowledge of the forged nature of the driving licence or reason to believe that the said licence was a forged one. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner/first accused for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC are set aside. If the revision petitioner has deposited any fine amount pursuant to the impugned judgment, the same shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.