JUDGMENT Anna Chandy, J. 1. Out of the five accused persons, tried by the Sessions Judge of Quilon in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1960, the appellant was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment under S.489D, I. P. C. and the other accused (accused 2 to 4) were acquitted. 2. P. W. 1 the Circle Inspector of Police, knowing of the design of the accused to commit counterfeiting of two-rupee currency note, arrested the 1st accused on 18-10-1959, searched his house in the presence of P. Ws. 3 and 5 and recovered M. Os. 1 to 12. Incriminating articles, and letters suggesting the existence of a concerted attempt to counterfeiting, were recovered from the house of some of the other accused and after completing the investigation, the police charged accused 1, 3 and 5 under S.489D and 489A, I. P. C., accused 2 under S.489 A, C and D and accused 4 under S.489D read with S.34 and S.489A, I. P. C. As the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all but the 1st accused and as the State has preferred no appeal against the acquittal, I have to confine myself in this appeal by the 1st accused to the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 5 alone so far as their evidence relates to him. 3. P. W. 1 the Circle Inspector speaks about the search of accused 1's house and the recovery of M. Os. 1 to 12 from his house. A good deal of adverse criticism was made about the legality of the search and P. W. 1's investigation. The arrest of the appellant on the 18th and the search of his house on that date, are also hotly disputed. It is the case of the 1st accused that he was arrested on the 17th and after the police planting the incriminating articles M. Os. 1 to 12 in his house, the alleged search was conducted only on the 19th. A village Assistant P. W. 3 is an attestor of the search mahazar. By a very cleverly concealed and subtle method, he tried to sabotage the prosecution case. 1 to 12 in his house, the alleged search was conducted only on the 19th. A village Assistant P. W. 3 is an attestor of the search mahazar. By a very cleverly concealed and subtle method, he tried to sabotage the prosecution case. In chief examination he gave evidence that the search was conducted in his presence, that the accused opened the room himself in the house where all the incriminating articles were kept with his key and he also identified the articles, but in cross examination he tried to shatter the very foundation of the case. He stated that he attested the search mahazar on his way to the Taluk Cutcherry to remit the collections of the week and added that he so remitted the money on 18-10-1959 which is a Sunday. The story of his going to the Taluk Cutcherry on a public holiday and remitting the money there is palpably false. Evidently this is a conscious attempt to support the accused's case that the search was actually conducted on the 19th and not on the 18th. With the same purpose, the witness stated that the accused was arrested on the 17th, and police men were deputed to guard his house on the 18th. However when cornered in re-examination, he became confused and had to admit that his information about the arrest of the accused on the 17th and the posting of police men to guard his house on the 18th are all hearsay and he has no direct knowledge about it. The learned Sessions Judge then took the witness into his hands and asked some pertinent questions which compelled the Village Assistant to admit that what he stated about his remitting the money on Sunday is false. The learned advocate for the defence Sri. Velayudhan Nair characterised the learned Judge's treatment of the witness under examination of the court improper. When witnesses are prevaricating and deliberately perjuring in cross examination after supporting the prosecution in chief examination and that in a very clever manner, there is nothing improper in the Judge refusing to be imposed upon by such perjuring witnesses. A Village Assistant should be the last person to indulge in such reprehensible tactics. The Public Prosecutor could have handled the witness in re-examination. A Village Assistant should be the last person to indulge in such reprehensible tactics. The Public Prosecutor could have handled the witness in re-examination. He could have cross examined the witness in re-examination, declaring him hostile, instead of making it necessary for the court to handle the witness and put the court questions to expose the witnesses duplicity. This conduct of the witness I am sure will be taken note of by the Department, so that such tricks may not be repeated by others. P. W. 5 the other attestor also gave evidence that M. Os. 1 to 12 were recovered from the house of the accused in the accused's presence and identified them, but he added that he was not there when the search was begun. He too made a decided attempt to help the accused by adding that the search was conducted on the 19th and not on the 18th. 4. In spite of the conscious attempts made by P. Ws. 3 and 5 to help the accused, their evidence taken along with the evidence of P.W. 1 the Circle Inspector who conducted the search has proved the search and recovery of M. Os. 1 to 12 from the 1st accused's house. The 1st accused in his S.342 statement did not deny that the house searched is in his exclusive possession or that M. Os. 1 to 12 were taken from there. His complaint is only that M. Os. 1 to 12 were planted by the police in his house, after arresting him on 17-10-1959. If the search is admitted and the M. Os. recovered are admitted to be from that house, then the question resolves itself to this, whether the materials were falsely planted there before the search on 18-10-1959. The defence of the 1st accused, seems to be centred around the fact, that he was arrested on 17-10-1959, and the police constables were deputed to guard his house. There is no evidence to support this wild suggestion except the accused's statement, the hearsay allegation made by P. W. 3 and the halting and inconclusive suggestions made by P. W. 5. On the other hand, there is the clear and definite evidence of P. W. 1 the Circle Inspector supported by the records that the accused was arrested from his house on the 18th. On the other hand, there is the clear and definite evidence of P. W. 1 the Circle Inspector supported by the records that the accused was arrested from his house on the 18th. Why the Circle Inspector who is not alleged to have any particular enmity towards the accused, should be so unwise as to foist such common and imperfect articles on the accused to substantiate a charge of possessing materials for counterfeiting two-rupee currency notes, is not explained. 5. An attempt was made to question the legality of the search since no record was prepared as contemplated by S.165(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and no copy of the record was forwarded to the Magistrate. The Circle Inspector who conducted the search, was not asked anything about it, and on verification from the case diary file it was found, that a memorandum was actually prepared and a copy of it was also sent promptly. Hence the objection was not pressed. It was also contended that of M. Os. 5 and 10, which alone according to the expert were exclusively useful for the purpose of counterfeiting, M. O. 5 does not contain the correct outline of Asoka Sthambham and an identifiable description of one of the fifteen types in M. O. 10 containing the serial prefix L/48 was not given in the search mahazar. It is true that M. O. 5 does not show the accurate outline of the Asoka Sthambham, but the expert is definite that it is useful exclusively for counterfeiting. As for the objection regarding M. O. 10 though a detailed description of the particular type is not given in the mahazar, it is mentioned there that fifteen types containing digits and numbers were recovered. P. W. 1 who effected the recovery and P. Ws. 3 and 5 have clearly identified all the M. Os, as having been recovered from the house and there is not even the faintest suggestion that this was not one of the material objects actually recovered. 6. Another point raised, is that the materials recovered are not usable for counterfeiting two-rupee notes. A successful counterfeiting with the materials recovered is not a sine qua non for a conviction under S.489D, I. P. C. All that is necessary is that the materials found must be part of the out-fit for counterfeiting, vide Jwala v. Emperor (AIR 1928 Allahabad 754). A successful counterfeiting with the materials recovered is not a sine qua non for a conviction under S.489D, I. P. C. All that is necessary is that the materials found must be part of the out-fit for counterfeiting, vide Jwala v. Emperor (AIR 1928 Allahabad 754). The evidence of the currency expert, P. W. 2, is convincing that all the materials can be made use of for counterfeiting two rupee currency notes though all except M. Os. 5 and 10 could be used for the purpose of bookbinding also. If a particular material is useful for other purposes also that does not take away its usefulness for counterfeiting. Taken along with things exclusively useful for counterfeiting, things useful for other purposes also come within the ambit of S.489-D. Cumulative usefulness of all the materials should be the guiding factor. The 1st accused has no case that he was a book-binder and he was keeping book-binders' tools in his house. In his statement before the committing Magistrate, he flatly denied everything and in the Sessions Court also he denied everything and made no claim of having book-binders' implements in his house. This belated suggestion of M. Os. 1 to 12 being kept in the 1st accused's house for book-binding, runs counter to the charge of false arrest and foisting. Hence no question was asked to the Circle Inspector and the Sub-Inspector about the usefulness of M. Os. 1 to 12 for book-binding. 7. It was argued that the prosecution has not supplied the source of the information contained in the First Information Report and in the nature of it, it is possible to infer that the information was got from the accused who must have been arrested earlier. The Circle Inspector was not bound to disclose the source of the information nor was any attempt made to ascertain that from him. He gives definite evidence that the accused was arrested on the 18th from his house and that evidence cannot be discarded for fanciful suggestions and unreal surmises. The 1st accused's possession of materials sufficient in the opinion of the expert to counterfeit two-rupee currency notes, is sufficiently proved by the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 5. That and the absence of any explanation why the appellant was in possession of M. Os. 1 to 12 especially M. Os. The 1st accused's possession of materials sufficient in the opinion of the expert to counterfeit two-rupee currency notes, is sufficiently proved by the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 5. That and the absence of any explanation why the appellant was in possession of M. Os. 1 to 12 especially M. Os. 5 and 10 are two of the most compelling circumstances to establish the appellant's guilt under S.489-D, I. P. C. beyond a shadow of doubt. The sentence of three years' imprisonment errs only on the side of leniency. Hence I find no reason to interfere. The conviction and sentence are upheld and the appeal is dismissed.