Judgment :- This Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition, and the Judgments of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs. S. Mohankumaramangalam aad Mr. C. K. Venkatanarasimhan, Advocates for the petitioner in Cri. R. C. No. 1407 of 1959 and the Respondent in C. A. No. 217 of 1960 and of Mr. M. Narayanamurthy for the Public Prosecutor, the Appellant in C. A. No. 217 of 1960, and on behalf of the State in Cri. R. C. No. 1407 of 1959, the Court delivered the following Judgment: 2.The revision petition is against the conviction of the Petitioner for an offence under S. 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. He was also tried under S. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act but was acquitted of the same. The appeal is preferred by the State against that acquittal. 3.The facts are these: Exs. P. 1 to P. 7 are envelopes addressed to various persons in Colombo. They were posted in Tuticorin. On suspicion, the Postal Appraiser Shri Viswanathan (P.W. 10) intercepted them at the Madurai General Post Office and when opened in the presence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 they were found to contain one hundred rupee currency notes, 64, in all. Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 were addressed to the brother of the petitioner, Ex. P. 7 to the petitioner and Exs. P. 3 to P. 6 to some other persons at the same address in Colombo, viz., No. 41; Baillie St., Colombo. Then prosecutions were launched against the petitioner and his brother (A. 2 in the lower court) whose case is not before me. 4.The prosecution has not proved in whose handwriting the addresses were written. What the prosecution has proved is that the petitioner Accused 1 is a resident of India and that his brother Accused 2 is a resident of Ceylon doing business there. They have also proved that the addressees mentioned on Exs. P. 3 to P. 6 are not doing any business at No. 41, Baillie Street, Colombo, but are servants of Accused 2 in that address. These are the only facts from which the prosecution seeks to get the accused convicted of the offence under S. 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. P. 3 to P. 6 are not doing any business at No. 41, Baillie Street, Colombo, but are servants of Accused 2 in that address. These are the only facts from which the prosecution seeks to get the accused convicted of the offence under S. 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The lower appellate court in paragraphs 12 to 15 dealt with the various aspects. 5.On the facts stated above, it cannot be said that it has been established beyond all doubt that it was the accused who sent the currency notes contained in the envelopes to the addressees mentioned on the various envelopes. There is no doubt a very strong suspicion amounting almost to a moral certainty that it was this accused who sent these notes. But moral certainty cannot take the place of legal proof which in this case is lacking. There is no proof that the writing on the covers is that of the petitioner. There is no other circumstance connecting the petitioner even with the posting of these envelopes at the post office in Tuticorin. It is quite possible and that possibility is not ruled out, altogether that some other persons might have sent the money adopting this method of sending money in ordinary envelopes so that it may not be suspected and the addressees might get the money there and subsequently he might contact the addressees and the arrangement made by him fulfilled. As this possibility is not ruled out and as there is no other clinching circumstance to connect the petitioner with the posting or with the writing on the envelopes which contained the notes, it cannot be said that the guilt has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. 6.The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and he is acquitted. The revision petition is allowed. The fine amount, if paid, will be refunded. 7.Since the revision petition is allowed, the appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent in the appeal has to fail, since it is on the same facts that the State seeks to set aside the acquittal of the respondent accused of an offence under Section 167(81). If the offence under Section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not made out, the offence under S. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act also is not made out. If the offence under Section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not made out, the offence under S. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act also is not made out. The appeal against the acquittal by the State is dismissed.Exs. D. 2 and D. 3, the passports belonging to the accused will be returned to him.This Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition, and the Judgments of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs. S. Mohankumaramangalam aad Mr. C. K. Venkatanarasimhan, Advocates for the petitioner in Cri. R. C. No. 1407 of 1959 and the Respondent in C. A. No. 217 of 1960 and of Mr. M. Narayanamurthy for the Public Prosecutor, the Appellant in C. A. No. 217 of 1960, and on behalf of the State in Cri. R. C. No. 1407 of 1959, the Court delivered the following Judgment: 2.The revision petition is against the conviction of the Petitioner for an offence under S. 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. He was also tried under S. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act but was acquitted of the same. The appeal is preferred by the State against that acquittal. 3.The facts are these: Exs. P. 1 to P. 7 are envelopes addressed to various persons in Colombo. They were posted in Tuticorin. On suspicion, the Postal Appraiser Shri Viswanathan (P.W. 10) intercepted them at the Madurai General Post Office and when opened in the presence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 they were found to contain one hundred rupee currency notes, 64, in all. Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 were addressed to the brother of the petitioner, Ex. P. 7 to the petitioner and Exs. P. 3 to P. 6 to some other persons at the same address in Colombo, viz., No. 41; Baillie St., Colombo. Then prosecutions were launched against the petitioner and his brother (A. 2 in the lower court) whose case is not before me. 4.The prosecution has not proved in whose handwriting the addresses were written. What the prosecution has proved is that the petitioner Accused 1 is a resident of India and that his brother Accused 2 is a resident of Ceylon doing business there. They have also proved that the addressees mentioned on Exs. 4.The prosecution has not proved in whose handwriting the addresses were written. What the prosecution has proved is that the petitioner Accused 1 is a resident of India and that his brother Accused 2 is a resident of Ceylon doing business there. They have also proved that the addressees mentioned on Exs. P. 3 to P. 6 are not doing any business at No. 41, Baillie Street, Colombo, but are servants of Accused 2 in that address. These are the only facts from which the prosecution seeks to get the accused convicted of the offence under S. 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The lower appellate court in paragraphs 12 to 15 dealt with the various aspects. 5.On the facts stated above, it cannot be said that it has been established beyond all doubt that it was the accused who sent the currency notes contained in the envelopes to the addressees mentioned on the various envelopes. There is no doubt a very strong suspicion amounting almost to a moral certainty that it was this accused who sent these notes. But moral certainty cannot take the place of legal proof which in this case is lacking. There is no proof that the writing on the covers is that of the petitioner. There is no other circumstance connecting the petitioner even with the posting of these envelopes at the post office in Tuticorin. It is quite possible and that possibility is not ruled out, altogether that some other persons might have sent the money adopting this method of sending money in ordinary envelopes so that it may not be suspected and the addressees might get the money there and subsequently he might contact the addressees and the arrangement made by him fulfilled. As this possibility is not ruled out and as there is no other clinching circumstance to connect the petitioner with the posting or with the writing on the envelopes which contained the notes, it cannot be said that the guilt has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. 6.The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and he is acquitted. The revision petition is allowed. The fine amount, if paid, will be refunded. 6.The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and he is acquitted. The revision petition is allowed. The fine amount, if paid, will be refunded. 7.Since the revision petition is allowed, the appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent in the appeal has to fail, since it is on the same facts that the State seeks to set aside the acquittal of the respondent accused of an offence under Section 167(81). If the offence under Section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not made out, the offence under S. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act also is not made out. The appeal against the acquittal by the State is dismissed.Exs. D. 2 and D. 3, the passports belonging to the accused will be returned to him.