Ponnu Pillai v. State — 1954 DIGILAW 197 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. These appeals are by accused Nos. 5, 1, 9, 2 and 3 respectively against the convictions and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagercoil in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1953. These accused along with ten others were tried by the lower court for offences under S. 120B, 489A to d and 201 I.P.C. All the 15 accused persons were said to have engaged themselves in a criminal conspiracy with the object of counterfeiting 100 rupee currency notes and trafficking in them. It was stated that in pursuance of this conspiracy the 1st accused approached one Kumaran Pachan of Muttathura in Trivandrum who had in his possession some blocks for counterfeiting 100 rupee notes. These blocks were said to have been made by one N.S. Nair of Trivandrum, an expert photographer and artist who had entrusted them to the said Pachan in June or July 1951. Pachan sold these blocks to the 1st accused for Rs.50. About the third week of September 1951, accused 1, 2,3 and 5 were said to have collected all the materials and implements necessary for counterfeiting 100 rupee currency notes at the house of the 2nd accused at Kalliyoor. The 4th accused a carpenter and block-maker was called in and at the instance of accused 1, 2 and 3 he did some expert work on the blocks to get them ready for printing. Accused 1 to 3 had a preliminary trial on the blocks and press to see whether they worked satisfactorily. In October 1951, accused 1, 2, 3 and 5 removed all these materials and implements to the house of the 3rd accused at Eraniel and there with the help of those materials accused 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 counterfeited more than 300 notes during the next two months. The accused then agreed to dispose of these counterfeit notes for value and distribute the value among themselves. Accordingly the 3rd accused was said to have given 200 of these notes to the 1st accused and 100 notes to the 2nd accused. Out of the 100 notes in his possession the 2nd accused sent about 60 of them to the 13th accused through his son the 12th accused from which the 13th accused gave 2 or 3 notes to the 14th accused for enactment. Out of the 100 notes in his possession the 2nd accused sent about 60 of them to the 13th accused through his son the 12th accused from which the 13th accused gave 2 or 3 notes to the 14th accused for enactment. The 13th accused was able to dispose of only two notes and returned the remaining notes to the 2nd accused. Later on the 2nd accused handed over these notes to the 9th accused for disposal. The 9th accused made some attempts to pass off these notes. On the night of the 26th February 1953 while on his way to Kollamcode for the purpose of uttering 30 of these notes he was waylaid and arrested by the police who recovered the notes from his person. On the following morning acting on information given by the 9th accused the police recovered 43 more notes from his house. The 13th accused has given two or three such notes to the 14th accused, who gave them to Pw. 22 redeem some ornaments pledged with her. On information furnished by the 14th accused, Pw. 64 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nemom recovered these notes from Pw. 22 on 1.3.1953. The 1st accused to whom 200 notes had been given for disposal sold 3 of them to the 11th accused for Rs. 25. The 11th accused used these three notes to entangle his enemies Pws. 44 and 55. He purchased a "Chellam" M.O.7 from Pw. 48, put two notes in that Chellam, locked up and conveyed it to the house of Pw. 44 with the help of Pw. 54. He had also inscribed the name of Pw. 55 on the inner edge of the Chellam. After doing this he sent an anonymous petition to the police stating that if the house of Pws. 44 and 55 were searched the police would find similar counterfeit notes in plenty. Accordingly the police recovered on searching the house of Pw. 44 the Chellam in question with the two counterfeit notes enclosed in it. Pws. 44 and 55 were also arrested. But further investigation did not disclose that these persons were involved in the counterfeiting of the notes. They were let on bail. This was in December 1952 and as further facts were not elicited by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vilavancode, the Inspector General of Police deputed Pw. Pws. 44 and 55 were also arrested. But further investigation did not disclose that these persons were involved in the counterfeiting of the notes. They were let on bail. This was in December 1952 and as further facts were not elicited by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vilavancode, the Inspector General of Police deputed Pw. 68 the Sub-Inspector attached to the crime branch to enquire into the matter. It was in the course of such investigation that he came to know of the 9th accused's complicity in the matter. With the arrest of the 9th accused on 26.2.1953 the investigation proceeded with speed so that the whole plot was unearthed within a short time. The several cases about this matter had been registered in different police stations and these were consolidated and enquired into as P.E. 3 of 1953. After the enquiry the accused were committed to stand their trial before the Sessions Court. 2. The learned Sessions Judge found that the notes recovered in the case as M.Os. I, II, XI, XII, XXV and XXVIII series were counterfeit notes, that they could be manufactured with the help of the material objects M.O. XV series blocks and M.O. XXVI Brahma Press, that the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 were alone involved in the conspiracy to counterfeit the notes, that these accused and the 9th accused had attempted to utter the same, that the 15th accused who was the brother of the 3rd accused had helped the latter in concealing the blocks and instruments used for counterfeiting and that it was not proved that the other accused had any connection with the case charged against them. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were found guilty under Ss.120B and 481A I.P.C. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were further found guilty under S.489D I.P.C, the 9th accused under S. 489B and C, and the 15th accused under S. 489D. Accused 1 to 3 and 5 were sentenced to transportation for life for the offence under S.489A, accused 2 and 3 were in addition found guilty under S.489D and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each, and accused 9 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under S. 489B and for five years under S. 489C. The 15th accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under S. 489D. The other accused were acquitted. The 15th accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under S. 489D. The other accused were acquitted. The sentences passed on accused 2,3 and 9 were directed to run concurrently. 3. The State had filed Crl. Appeals 19 and 20 of 1954 (T) against the acquittal of accused 10 and 14. These appeals were heard and dismissed by us. Appeal 73 of 1954 filed by the 15th accused had been allowed by us and he was acquitted. The appeals by accused 1 to 3,5 and 9 remained for consideration. 4. It was not disputed before us that the notes recovered in the case were counterfeit notes. The Coin and Currency Expert Pw. 65 has given his reasons for his view that these are counterfeit notes. We accept his view and confirm the finding of the lower court that the notes involved in this case are counterfeit 100 rupee currency notes. 5. Though the case had been started on the attempt of the 11th accused to entangle Pws. 44 and 55 no offence against the 11th accused had been proved. At any rate the 11th accused was not shown to have any intention to utter these notes. It was with the arrest of the 9th accused on the 26th February 1953 that the investigation progressed speedily and effectively. The police, particularly Pw. 68, had secret information that the 9th accused was involved in uttering counterfeit notes and that on the 26th February 1953 he would be going to Kollamcode to utter those notes. The police party lay in wait for him at Cheruvarakonam junction which the 9th accused had to pass on his way to Kollamcode. At about 11 p.m. they saw him coming down the road. They stopped him and questioned him and recovered 30 counterfeit notes from his person. That is M.O. XI in the case. A Mahazar Ext. W regarding this recovery was prepared. It contained the description of all the notes, as well as the circumstances which led to its preparation, as sworn to by Pws.1 and 68 and also by Pw. 13 an independent witness, who had attested the same. Pw. 13 is a P.W.D. contractor and he was on his way back home after inspecting a tank for digging which he wanted to give a tender for the work. 13 an independent witness, who had attested the same. Pw. 13 is a P.W.D. contractor and he was on his way back home after inspecting a tank for digging which he wanted to give a tender for the work. He swore that he saw the accused going to the Cheruvarakonam junction when the police officers stopped and questioned him, that the notes were then recovered from the 9th accused and that he was present until the preparation of the Mahazar was over. The lower court had believed him and we do not find any reason to discredit his testimony. The 9th accused then told the police that he had kept the other notes in his house. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara within whose jurisdiction the 9th accused was living was informed of the existence of such notes. After obtaining the necessary sanction from the Magistrate the 9th accused was taken early next morning to his house at Parassalai. By that time Pw. 64 the Sub-Inspector of Nemom had also come there. The accused on being taken to his house got into the western room and from inside a box produced 43 notes which were kept rolled up in a paper and a dirty piece of cloth. Those notes are M.O. XII. Ext. Z Mahazar was then prepared about this recovery. It was attested by the Sub-Inspectors Pws.1, 59 and 68 and also by an independent witness Pw. 11 who was present at the time the accused was taken to that place. He had also given a detailed description of what took place there. He is a neighbour and a man of status. He owns 12 acres of garden land and over one acre of paddy land. The recovery is therefore proved satisfactorily in the case. The 9th accused, when he was questioned by the Sessions Judge, had admitted the recovery but stated that the house from which these notes were recovered belonged to his father and that he was living in a different house. But the accused had taken the police to this house and the accused's wife, his parents and his brother's wife were all living there. So his case that he was not living there could not be true. But the accused had taken the police to this house and the accused's wife, his parents and his brother's wife were all living there. So his case that he was not living there could not be true. Though there were other adult members in the house the recovery of the notes by the accused from the box kept by him would show that he knew where the notes were hidden, and that he would have been the person who had hidden the notes there. This becomes all the more probable when it is noted that the 9th accused had in his possession of 30 other counterfeit notes while he was arrested on the previous night. So it had been established beyond the shadow of any doubt that the 9th accused was in possession of a good number of counterfeit notes. He should have been in possession of these notes knowing them to be counterfeit and with the intention of using them as genuine. The offence under S.489 I.P.C. had therefore been made out. 6. There is also good evidence in the case to show that the 9th accused had attempted to utter these notes. Pws. 35, 36 and 21 among the several witnesses cited to prove this fact had been believed by the learned judge. On going through their evidence we do not think that there is any misappreciation of evidence. Thus the charge against the 9th accused for the offence under S. 489B is also made out. The conviction of the 9th accused by the lower court under S. 489B and C is therefore upheld. 7. It was with the arrest of the 9th accused that the police came to know that the 2nd accused was also involved in this. The 2nd accused was apparently a respectable man being an Ayurveda Physician with his Vydiasala and house near Nemom. He is also an Inspector attached to the Hindu Mission. The prosecution case was that the notes which the 9th accused had with him were handed over to him by the 2nd accused. After the arrest of the 9th accused on the 26th February 1953 the police searched the house of the 2nd accused on the 27th. The 2nd accused was not there and so the Inspector of Police left a constable Pw. 63 to take the 2nd accused to the Vilavancode Police Station. After the arrest of the 9th accused on the 26th February 1953 the police searched the house of the 2nd accused on the 27th. The 2nd accused was not there and so the Inspector of Police left a constable Pw. 63 to take the 2nd accused to the Vilavancode Police Station. The prosecution version is that on the next day that is on 28.2.1953 the 2nd accused appeared before the police station and on beng questioned he expressed his desire to make a confession. He was sent to the Magistrate Pw. 45 whose court was in the same building as the police station. The confessional statement Ext. BE was recorded by the Magistrate and the accused was sent back for further investigation. The confession referred to the complicity of accused 1 and 3 also in the matter and police therefore diverted their enquiry in that direction. The 3rd accused in whose house these notes were said to have been counterfeited had been involved in a counterfeit case charged by the Tuticorin North Police. He had been arrested by the Tuticorin Police and had been released on bail. He was said to have informed the police that the blocks and instruments used for counterfeiting the notes had been handed over to his brother the 15th accused for secretion and that the 15th accused had secreted them in Vathikonam Puraidom in Eraniel. Though it was argued before the lower court that the recovery of these instruments pursuant to the information given by the 3rd accused was admissible against the 3rd accused under S. 27 of the Evidence Act, the learned judge entertained some doubt as to the admissibility of this. As the complicity of the 3rd accused in this affair, according to the learned judge, was proved by other acceptable evidence much weight was not given to the recovery of the instruments and blocks. The learned judge had not fully appreciated the importance of the recovery and the circumstances that led to the same. After the arrest of the 3rd accused he had told the police about the secretion of the blocks. He was taken to the Eraniel Police Station and his brother the 15th accused was also brought there. The 15th accused when questioned confirmed the statement of the 3rd accused. Thereupon the Sub-Inspector of Police, Eraniel submitted Ext. AS report to the Magistrate Pw. He was taken to the Eraniel Police Station and his brother the 15th accused was also brought there. The 15th accused when questioned confirmed the statement of the 3rd accused. Thereupon the Sub-Inspector of Police, Eraniel submitted Ext. AS report to the Magistrate Pw. 2 at 4 A..M. on the 28th February 1953 requesting him to effect a search. The report was received by him at 4-15 A.M. and the Magistrate went to the police station. He questioned the 3rd accused first who told him that the blocks and instruments used for counterfeiting the notes had been put in a gunny bag and handed over to his elder brother Chidambaran Pillai Velayudhan Pillai on the 18th of the previous month and that Velayudhan Pillai had buried them in his Vathikonam compound in Thalakulam Pakuthy. That is what is mentioned in Ext. AG Mahazar. This is followed by the statement that when Velayudhan Pillai who is the 15th accused was asked about this he confirmed the statement made by the 3rd accused. Such information by a co-accused would not take away the evidentiary value of the statement made by the 3rd accused and of the recovery of the incriminating materials in consequence of such statement. S. 27 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. The important consideration is that the discovery must be in consequence of information from the accused. Although it is not necessary that the informant himself should personally discover the property, the discovery must be due the information given by him. Sarkar at page 257 of his Commentary on the Evidence Act (9th Edn.) mentions thus: "An information received from the accused which has led to discovery does not cease to the information causing the discovery simply because such discovery was facilitated by other assistance as well. When a fact is once discovered in consequence of information received from some source, any further information subsequently received from any other source cannot be said to be the information whereby the fact is discovered. When a fact is once discovered in consequence of information received from some source, any further information subsequently received from any other source cannot be said to be the information whereby the fact is discovered. The mere plurality of information received before discovery shall not necessarily take any of these information out of the section". 8. The 3rd accused had clearly stated that he had only employed his elder brother as an agent to bury the incriminating articles in Vathikonam compound. From the statement made by the 3rd accused it became evident to the Magistrate where to look for the blocks and other materials recovered in the case. Thus the recovery of these materials by the Magistrate under Ext. AG is a fact that could be proved against the 3rd accused. The Magistrate P.W. 2 swore to all these facts. He also swore to the recovery of blocks M.O. XV series, the two pieces of lead M.O. XVI, the paper cutter M.O. XVII and some other materials which are marked as M.O. XIX. The Coin and Currency Expert had sworn that with these blocks the notes in question recovered could be printed. The possession of these blocks had not been explained by the 3rd accused. 9. An argument was advanced that the search conducted by the Magistrate was illegal so that Ext. AG Mahazar and the materials recovered pursuant to such search were inadmissible in evidence. According to the learned Advocate, a Second Class Magistrate, is not competent to issue a warrant to search any place for the purpose of detecting instrument or materials for counterfeiting the currency notes. It was argued that under S. 98 of Crl. P.C. a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class alone was competent to issue such a warrant. S. 98 deals with the powers of Magistrates to issue a search warrant otherwise than in course of enquiry whereas when an enquiry had been started or when it is about to be started it is the power under S. 96, Crl. P.C. that has to be invoked. S.96 deals with searches in general and it empowers any court to issue a warrant for a general search or inspection. The expression "any court" used there is significant and means any Magistrate. P.C. that has to be invoked. S.96 deals with searches in general and it empowers any court to issue a warrant for a general search or inspection. The expression "any court" used there is significant and means any Magistrate. S. 36 provides for the exercise of powers by Magistrates of the several grades as specified in the third schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code. In the first part to the Third Schedule of the Crl. P.C. while dealing with the ordinary powers of the Magistrates of the Third Class, Cl. 8 mentions the powers of Magistrates to issue search warrants under S.96. While dealing with the ordinary powers of Magistrates of the Second Class, the first clause confers on him all the ordinary powers of Magistrates of the Third Class. When we come to the powers of the Magistrates of the First Class we see that the clause provides for the issue of search warrants otherwise than in course of an inquiry under S. 98. Thus the distinction is made sufficiently clear in the Third Schedule read with Ss. 36 and 96 and 98 of the Crl. P.C. C1.2 of S.96 further clarifies this position, for to issue a warrant to search for a document, parcel or other thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authorities the District Magistrate or the Chief Presidency Magistrate alone is given the power to issue the same. This necessarily indicates that in all other cases where an inquiry, trial, or other proceedings is pending before a court or is about to be started before that court any Magistrate can issue a search warrant. 10. In this case therefore the Second Class Magistrate, Eraniel, was quite competent to issue a search warrant and when he was competent to issue such a warrant it was open to him to direct a search in his presence as provided for under S.105 of the Crl. P.C. Thus the search ordered in this case was perfectly legal and there was absolutely no irregularity or illegality in the search conducted in the presence of the Magistrate. 11. P.C. Thus the search ordered in this case was perfectly legal and there was absolutely no irregularity or illegality in the search conducted in the presence of the Magistrate. 11. The other evidence in the case has to be viewed with reference to what transpired on the 26th February 1953 when the 9th accused was arrested while he was in possession of counterfeit currency notes, and on the 28th February 1953 when blocks with which those notes could be counterfeited were recovered on information furnished by the 3rd accused. The investigating officers collected other evidence only after the 26th February 1953 and the arrest of the 2nd accused was also on the 26th February 1953. The evidence furnished by Pw. 5 Chellappan Asari was to the effect that in Chingom 1127 the 3rd accused had brought his car to his workshop for repairs. After two or three days the 3rd accused came to take the car back after repairs. The witness Pw. 5 was asked to accompany him in the car to see whether it was effectively repaired and was in good working condition. The witness would say that he accompanied the 3rd accused in the car to the house of the 2nd accused near Nemom where they saw the 2nd accused in his Vydiasala which was in front of his house. From there the 2nd accused took them to the house where accused 1 and 4 were present. The 4th accused was then working on a block. The 3rd accused asked him whether the work was finished to which the 4th accused replied that it would be ready in two days' time. Then accused 1 to 3 and the witness came to the second accused's Vydiasala and had some coffee there. Then the 3rd accused and Pw. 5 left the place. This witness had also stated that the block he found there was like the one in M.O. XV series. As the witness was not acquainted with the 4th accused his testimony identifying him as the person who was working on the block in the 2nd accused's house was not accepted by the lower court. In all other respects his evidence was believed. P.W. 17 is a neighbour of the 2nd accused. He would say that about the middle of Kanni 1127 M.E. he saw accused 1 and 3 alighting from a car and entering the 2nd accused's house. In all other respects his evidence was believed. P.W. 17 is a neighbour of the 2nd accused. He would say that about the middle of Kanni 1127 M.E. he saw accused 1 and 3 alighting from a car and entering the 2nd accused's house. While he was returning home the same day at 6 or 6.30 P.M. he saw the same car waiting and also accused 1 to 3 there. Accused 2 and 3 were then engaged in carrying a bundle to the car. Though not of much consequence this evidence would indicate that accused 1 to 3 closely associated themselves too often. P.W. 25 is the next witness who is relied on by the lower court. He is acquainted with the 2nd accused. He would say that at about 3.30 P.M. on the 10th Kanni 1127 M.E. he went to the 2nd accused's Vydiasala to purchase some medicine. The Vydiasala was open but the 2nd accused was not there. He therefore went to the 2nd accused's house adjoining the Vydiasala and he saw through the open window there accused 2 and 3 and another person sitting in a room in the midst of tins of ink and paper. The 3rd accused was seen turning a double handled machine which he identified as a M.O. XXVI Brahma Press. He watched them for about 15 minutes and then made some noise by coughing to attract the attention of the 2nd accused. The 2nd accused came out and gave him the medicine he wanted and sent him away. No ill-feeling between him and the accused 2 and 3 was suggested in cross-examination. He is one who owns 3 acres of garden land and we think that the lower court has correctly believed him. 12. Another witness relied on by the court below is P.W. 6 who is the salesman in Gani and Co., Trivandrum. According to him accused 1 to 3 had purchased from the shop on 9.11.1951 half a ream of white bond paper and one pound each of bronze blue ink and universal red ink. The copy of the bill book was produced as Ext. AQ. Ext. AQ does not contain the name of the persons who are stated to have purchased the above materials. Admittedly P.W. 6 was not acquainted with accused 1 to 3 previously. The copy of the bill book was produced as Ext. AQ. Ext. AQ does not contain the name of the persons who are stated to have purchased the above materials. Admittedly P.W. 6 was not acquainted with accused 1 to 3 previously. It was not probable for a salesman to remember all the transactions entered into between him and others who are absolute strangers to him especially after the lapse of an year. As observed by the learned judge there was no identification parade held so as to verify the veracity of the statement of this witness who though not quite acquainted with the accused was able to identify them. Because of this flaw we cannot attach any weight to the evidence given by Pw. 6. 13. Then there is the evidence of Pw. 40 who was a taxi driver at Veppummodu junction, Nagercoil. He would say that towards the end of November 1952 the 3rd accused and another person hired his taxi to travel from Eraniel to Kuzhithurai, that they went to Eraniel and got down at the 3rd accused's house, that accused 2 and 5 brought a bundle clothed with sack and deposited it in the carrier of the car, that accused 2, 3 and 5 and another person went in again and brought some more things and placed them in the car, and that all of them except the 3rd accused got into the car and drove to Pozhikkara. He would add that when the car reached the destination they were met by the 7th accused who questioned them why they were late and that all the persons helped to remove these things from the car to that house. The part said to have been played by the 7th accused was not believed by the lower court because this witness could have seen the 7th accused only for a few minutes at the most at Pozhikkara, and that on a dark night. The close association of accused 2 and 3 is spoken to by this witness and to that extent we believe him. 14. The next witness who had been believed by the court below is Pw. 39. The learned Advocates appearing for the defence vehemently attacked the evidence given by this witness. Pw. The close association of accused 2 and 3 is spoken to by this witness and to that extent we believe him. 14. The next witness who had been believed by the court below is Pw. 39. The learned Advocates appearing for the defence vehemently attacked the evidence given by this witness. Pw. 39 would say that when he went to the 3rd accused's house at about 8 P.M. on the 10th Thulam 1127 M.E. he saw the front gate latched, that he opened the gate, went in and found the door of the house, which was a two-storied building, also closed but not locked, that on hearing the 3rd accused's voice up-stairs he went up, that he saw the 2nd accused turning a machine identified as M.O. XXVI, that the 3rd accused was watching the process, that the 1st accused was spreading pieces of paper on a cloth, and that accused 5 and 7 were attending to some other work. Pw. 39 stated that he watched these proceedings for about 2 or 3 minutes when accused 3 noticed him whereupon he was led down-stairs and sent away. He stated that he was the driver of the 3rd accused's car. But he admitted that he was not the 3rd accused's regular driver and that his services were indented only when the permanent driver was absent on leave. The 3rd accused would stoutly deny that Pw. 39 was ever his driver. Pw. 39 had stated that the register numbers of the 3rd accused's cars were M.S.T.R.1764 and T.C.T. 2839. On the motion of the 3rd accused the Inspector-General of Police had been addressed by the learned judge to ascertain in whose name these cars were registered. It would seem that the Inspector-General of Police did not care to reply and the learned judge did not trouble to pursue the matter further. The learned judge should have certainly taken further steps to elicit the information called for and in the absence of a definite reply from the Inspector-General of Police, some responsible officer in that office could have been cited to appear with the necessary registers. At any rate the absence of the information may not be very material for the purpose of this case, for after going through the evidence of Pw. 39 we do not think that Pw. 39 is one who can be relied upon. At any rate the absence of the information may not be very material for the purpose of this case, for after going through the evidence of Pw. 39 we do not think that Pw. 39 is one who can be relied upon. He was involved in several offences connected with the driving of motor car and though he would say that he was acquitted in all these cases, it is difficult to believe that he was not under the influence of the police. In the Sessions Court he gave some more details than he did in the Magistrate's Court as will be evident from a perusal of his deposition Ext. XV in the Magistrate's Court and his evidence given in the Sessions Court. These additional details given were viewed with suspicion by the lower court and all those statements were ignored. 15. With the evidence thus on record the confession Ext. BE said to have been made by the 2nd accused before the Magistrate Pw. 45 may be considered. The 2nd accused's learned Advocate argued that this confession had been retracted and so it could not be acted upon unless it was corroborated by independent evidence. There is no case of real retraction of the confession for the second accused's statement in the Sessions Court as well as in the Magistrate's court was that he had not given any confession and that at the instance of the police he had given the Magistrate only a blank sheet of paper with his signature affixed thereto. The suggestion therefore was that the Magistrate in collusion with the police had written down a document so as to indicate that it was a confession made by the 2nd accused. If this version of the 2nd accused is not accepted and if the evidence given by the Magistrate Pw. 45 is believed then it would amount to a confession of guilt by the 2nd accused. The 2nd accused stated before the Sessions Court that he had been arrested on the 27th February 1953 and was kept in the police station at Kuzhithurai that night when he had been subjected to physical torture. He also stated that he was asked by the police to give a confession and that when he was taken to the Magistrate he only signed a blank paper without giving any statement. On the other hand Pw. He also stated that he was asked by the police to give a confession and that when he was taken to the Magistrate he only signed a blank paper without giving any statement. On the other hand Pw. 45 stated that the 2nd accused was taken to court at 10-5 A.M. on the 28th February 1953, that the accused was given sufficient time for reflection and that a statement as mentioned by the 2nd accused was recorded by him. We do not find any reason to disbelieve Pw. 45 the Magistrate. Even if the 2nd accused's statement that he was not given a confession can be taken to be a statement retracting the confession still there are sufficient materials to show that the confession is fully corroborated. 16. An argument was advanced that after searching the house of the 2nd accused on the 27th February the police would have taken all steps for an immediate arrest of this accused. What Pw.1 stated was that the 2nd accused was not present in his house at the time of the search and so after completing the search he had left a constable Pw. 63 to inform the 2nd accused to appear before the Kuzhithurai Police Station the next day. Though the 9th accused was arrested on the 26th February with the notes when he gave information as to how he came into possession of the counterfeit notes the police had not then collected sufficient materials indicating complicity of the 2nd accused. No incriminating materials were also recovered from the 2nd accused's house on search. It was only later on the morning of 1.3.1953 as is evident from Ext. AG that the blocks and other materials were recovered on information given by the 3rd accused. The 2nd accused was a prominent man of the locality with sufficient local influence. He was also a man of means so that the police would not have apprehended that he would escape. Moreover as they were not quite sure of the 2nd accused's part in the whole affair they might have asked Pw. 63 to inform the 2nd accused to appear before the station the next day. Accordingly the 2nd accused appeared before the station and when being questioned expressed his desire to confess the guilt. Pw. 45 had sworn that he was satisfied that the 2nd accused was giving a voluntary confessional statement. 63 to inform the 2nd accused to appear before the station the next day. Accordingly the 2nd accused appeared before the station and when being questioned expressed his desire to confess the guilt. Pw. 45 had sworn that he was satisfied that the 2nd accused was giving a voluntary confessional statement. In these circumstances, and in view of the statement made by the 2nd accused before the courts below, we do not find any difficulty in accepting Ext. BE as a voluntary statement. In that confession the 2nd accused had stated that the 1st accused broached a proposal of marriage between the daughter of the 1st accused and the son of the 2nd accused, that the 1st accused used to visit his house ostensibly for this purpose, that during one such visit the 1st accused entrusted him with a block useful for counterfeiting the 100 rupee note and requested his help to get some finishing touches done on that, that the 2nd accused sent for the 4th accused and entrusted him with the work to be attended to in the 2nd accused's house, that after one or two days when the work was finished the 1st accused brought the 3rd accused in a car to the 2nd accused's house and from there all of them went to the 3rd accused's house where some other blocks had been got ready, that after some days accused 3 and 5 again went to the 3rd accused's house and stayed for about two weeks, that during this time they made more than 300 of such notes, that 100 of the notes were given to him and 200 to the 1st accused for encashment on the understanding that the proceeds would be shared between them and that he kept the notes with him for about 2 months and then entrusted them to P.W. 10 to be handed over to the 1st accused who had by that time been arrested in connection with a counterfeit case in which one Velappan Nair was involved. 17. The constant association of accused 1 to 3 is proved by P.Ws. 5, 17, 25 and 40. P.W. 25 has even seen accused 1, 2,3 and 4 attending to the finishing work of the blocks. P.W. 5 also refers to some person in the 2nd accused's house attending to the work on the blocks. 17. The constant association of accused 1 to 3 is proved by P.Ws. 5, 17, 25 and 40. P.W. 25 has even seen accused 1, 2,3 and 4 attending to the finishing work of the blocks. P.W. 5 also refers to some person in the 2nd accused's house attending to the work on the blocks. The major portion the counterfeit notes said to have been entrusted by the 2nd accused with the 9th accused was recovered from the 9th accused at the time of his arrest and on information given by him. It is from these circumstances that the question has to be decided whether the accused had a common design and whether they pursued it by common means, the design being unlawful. 18. In this connection the direction of Coleridge, J. to the jury in Murphy (1837) 173 E.R. 508 quoted at page 515 of Glanville Williams Criminal Law, The General Part, 1953 Edition in his highly instructive and can be quoted with advantage. "You have been properly told that this being a charge of conspiracy, if you are of opinion that the acts, though done, were done without common concert and design between these two parties, the present charge cannot be supported. On the other hand, I am bound to tell you, that although the common design is the root of the change, it is not necessary to prove that these two parties came together and actually agreed in terms to have this common design, and to pursue it by common means, and so to carry it into execution. This is not necessary, because in many cases of the most clearly established conspiracies there are no means of proving any such thing, and neither law nor common sense requires that it should be proved. If you find that these two persons pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part of an act and the other another part of the same act, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the object which they were pursuing, you will be at liberty to draw the conclusion that they have been engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. The question you have to ask yourselves is, 'Had they this common design and did they pursue it by these common means the design being unlawful". 19. The question you have to ask yourselves is, 'Had they this common design and did they pursue it by these common means the design being unlawful". 19. From the circumstantial evidence and from the facts that have been mentioned above, it is evident that accused 1 to 3 had engaged themselves in a conspiracy to counterfeit 100 rupee currency notes and so these three persons can be convicted under Ss. 120B and 489A of the Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence to show that the 9th accused was in any way connected with this. The part said to have been played by the 5th accused is also not definitely made out. Pws.14 and 40 alone speak to the complicity of the 5th accused. What Pw. 14 stated was that one day towards the middle of Kanni 1127 M.E. he saw the 2nd accused picking up the 5th accused from his house and going to Parassalai. No helpful conclusion can be deduced from this statement to show that the 5th accused had taken any part in the conspiracy. Pw. 40 only stated that accused 1 to 3 and 5 went in his car from Eraniel to Poozhikkara. There is the evidence of Pw. 39 to the effect that the 5th accused also was present in the stairs of the 3rd accused's house when the counterfeit notes were printed. We have not believed the evidence of Pw. 39. Pw. 39 had also mentioned that accused 6 and 7 were also in that house at that particular time. The lower court has not also believed Pw. 39 when he speaks about the presence of accused 6 and 7 in that house. Barring this there is no evidence against the 5th accused and so we give him the benefit of the doubt and acquit him. 20. Since a conspiracy to forge counterfeit notes had been found against accused 1 to 3 all these persons can be convicted for the acts done by any one of them in furtherance of the common object. The court below has however convicted the 1st accused only under Ss. 120B and 489A whereas accused 2 and 3 were convicted under the above sections as well as under S. 489D for making or possessing instruments for counterfeiting currency notes. The 1st accused also could have been convicted under these sections. The court below has however convicted the 1st accused only under Ss. 120B and 489A whereas accused 2 and 3 were convicted under the above sections as well as under S. 489D for making or possessing instruments for counterfeiting currency notes. The 1st accused also could have been convicted under these sections. Anyhow we do not enter a conviction against the 1st accused under S.4891) as there is no appeal by the State. The lower court has given the maximum punishment of transportation for life to accused 1 to 3 and also awarded separate sentences to accused 2 and 3 for the offence under S. 489D I.P.C. The sentences were however directed to run concurrently. We do not think that the maximum punishment is called for. We give accused 1 to 3 only a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The 9th accused had been convicted under S. 489B and C. The lower court had sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under S. 489B and for five years under S. 489C and ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently. We think that rigorous imprisonment for three years each for the offences under Ss. 489B and 489C will be sufficient and the sentences are to run concurrently. 21. The convictions and sentences entered against the 5th accused are set aside and he is acquitted. 22. It has also to be stated that in view of the conspiracy mentioned in the charge against all the accused, there will be no misjoinder of charges or defect in the joint trial of all the accused as contended for by the learned Advocates for the appellants. As held in Kutty Nadar v. State, reported at page 732 of 1954 K.L.T. the validity of a joint trial is tested by the accusation made and not by the eventual result and so we overrule the said contention on behalf of the appellants. 23. In the result we modify the conviction and sentence passed by the court below as follows: Accused 1 to 3 are convicted under S.120B and 489A I.P.C. For the offence under S. 489A each of them is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and no separate sentence is passed for the offence under S. 120B. 23. In the result we modify the conviction and sentence passed by the court below as follows: Accused 1 to 3 are convicted under S.120B and 489A I.P.C. For the offence under S. 489A each of them is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and no separate sentence is passed for the offence under S. 120B. Accused 2 and 3 are in addition found guilty of the offence punishable under S. 489D and they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. But the sentence is to run concurrently with the sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment passed against them for the offence under S. 489A I.P.C. The 9th accused is found guilty under S. 489B and C and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years each for the two offences. But the sentences are to run concurrently. The 5th accused is acquitted and he will be set at liberty forthwith.