1. So far as the first accused is concerned there is no evidence that he committed an offence charged. All that the prosecution evidence shows is that the first accused gave certain information which led to the discovery of instruments of coining in the house of the 2nd accused. This is no proof that the 1st accused was in possession of the said instruments. This being so the Sessions Judge should under Section 289 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code have found the first accused not guilty. He was wrong in taking into consideration against the first accused the evidence given by the witnesses called by 2nd accused whose case was that the first accused has placed the instruments in his house without his knowledge. With regard to the 2nd accused the Sessions Judge has found on the defence evidence that the first accused had access to the almirah in which the instruments were found and we think the evidence justifies the finding. The fact that the post card Exhibit A was found in the drawer in which the instruments of coining were found loses its weight in view of the evidence which shows that the first accused had access to the almirah after the post card had been delivered to the 2nd accused. The 2nd accused might have put the post card in the drawer and the instruments might have been introduced by the first accused afterwards. In this state of the evidence we are unable to hold that the guilt of the 2nd accused is made out beyond reasonable doubt. The result is that the 1st and 2nd accused are acquitted of the offence under Section 235, Indian Penal Code with which they were charged and will be set at liberty.