Judgment :- 1. These criminal appeals and criminal revision petition arise from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Trivandrum in a counterfeit currency note case. 2. Of the nine accused persons tried by the learned judge for the offences punishable under S.120-B, 489-A and 489-D I. P. C., accused 4, 5, 6 and 8 have been acquitted and the rest convicted. The first accused was convicted under S.120-B I.P.C. alone and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Accused 2,3 and 9 were convicted under S.120-B, 489-A and 489-D and given a concurrent sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment. Accused 7 is convicted under S.120B and 489-D IPC. and given a concurrent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years. Along with the appeals of the convicted persons the State's appeal against the acquittal of accused 4, 5, 6 and 8 and the revision petition asking for the enhancement of the sentence of the appellants have been heard by us. 3. The prosecution case is that these nine accused together with two others, who have turned approvers and one Krishnan, who is now no more, entered into a conspiracy to produce counterfeit two-rupee currency notes. They obtained the blocks necessary for printing the notes from one N.S. Nair - who later committed suicide - and also purchased a press and other necessary equipment but were unsuccessful in producing counterfeit notes as the blocks turned out to be defective. They later obtained another set of blocks and had given them to be mounted and corrected when the conspiracy came to light and they were arrested. 4. The main evidence in this case is provided by the two approvers (Pws.1 and 2) and the prosecution case is best stated as sworn to by them. 5. Pw.1 Ravindran is a native of Kadakkavoor. He had passed his Matriculation and at the relevant time was a student of automobile engineering at the Central Motor School in Thampanoor, Trivandrum, staying in i hostel called the Majestic Home near the railway over-bridge at Thampanoor. One day towards the end of December 1939 Pw.1 met Krishnan who was known to him before. Krishnan invited Pw.1 to visit him at his house a couple of days later. Accordingly Pw.1 went to Krishnan's house at about 9 p. m. on 2nd January 1960. One day towards the end of December 1939 Pw.1 met Krishnan who was known to him before. Krishnan invited Pw.1 to visit him at his house a couple of days later. Accordingly Pw.1 went to Krishnan's house at about 9 p. m. on 2nd January 1960. He found Kuttan Panicker (accused one) and Krishnan Panicker (accused 5) already there and talking with Krishnan. He joined them and soon the talk turned to the counterfeiting of currency. Krishnan said that he knew one N.S. Nair an expert in block making and who had been involved in a counterfeiting case recently. Krishnan volunteered to get the blocks made by N. S. Nair if his companions so desired. Pw.1 in his turn offered to get the blocks made by an acquaintance of his one Narayanan Asari (accused 9). They finally decided that Krishnan should approach N.S. Nair and try to obtain the necessary blocks. About a week later Krishnan met Pw.1 at the Majestic Home and asked him to go over to the house of accused one at Poovar two days later. On the appointed day Krishnan together with accused 5 and another person, Bhanu Panicker (accused 6) came to the Majestic Home in Krishnan's car and after picking up Pw.1 proceeded to Poovar. When they reached the first accused's house one Mohammed Sali (accused 2) was already there. Krishnan informed the others that he had approached N. S. Nair who agreed to make the necessary blocks for counterfeiting two-rupee notes. Krishnan further told them that N.S. Nair had asked him to get the blocks corrected and mounted by some one else. Pw.1 suggested that the job should be got done by his friend accused 9. They then decided to buy a press to print the notes. Accused 1 suggested that the press should be purchased through Yesudasan (accused 3) a friend of his and the owner of the Vijaya Press. Accused 2 volunteered to invest the money for the press. After this discussion the accused dispersed. The next day Pw.1 went to Paravoor and talked to accused 9 about mounting the blocks to which the latter agreed. This information was conveyed, by Pw.1 to Krishnan at the Taj Mahal Hotel in Trivandrum which Krishnan often used to visit. At Krishnan's request Pw.1 went again to Taj Hotel four days later. There he met Krishnan, accused 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6. This information was conveyed, by Pw.1 to Krishnan at the Taj Mahal Hotel in Trivandrum which Krishnan often used to visit. At Krishnan's request Pw.1 went again to Taj Hotel four days later. There he met Krishnan, accused 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6. Krishnan showed them four blocks of the two-rupee currency note which he handed over to Pw.1 to get them mounted and corrected by accused 9. The talk turned to the availability of a house for carrying out the printing of notes. Accused 6 stated that he could not find a suitable house for the purpose. However he undertook to arrange the house of one Gangadharan (accused 7) if no other house was available. Accused 3 stated that if found suitable, the house of Thankayyan Nadar (accused. 4) at Anayara could be arranged for. Pw.1, Krishnan and accused 1 and 3 went the same night to the house of accused 4 and after inspecting it decided that the house will serve the purpose they had in mind., The next day Pw.1 went to Paravoor and handed the blocks to accused 9 to be mounted. A few days later he met Krishnan again at the Taj Hotel and informed him about giving the blocks to accused 9. Krishnan in his turn informed him that a press had been purchased by accused 3 through Pw. 2. One day early in March Pw.1 got back the mounted blocks from accused 9 and after handing them over to Krishnan at Trivandrum returned to his house at Kadakkavoor. Early in April on the 6th or 7th he was informed by accused 3 that Krishnan wanted to meet him. He met Krishnan the same day when he was informed that while printing proofs the blocks were damaged. Krishnan held Pw.1 responsible for the trouble. Pw.1 protested against that and hot words were exchanged between them. They parted, Pw.1 who agreed to bring accused 9 to meet Krishnan. When Pw.1 informed accused 9 about this accused 9 disclaimed all responsibility, alleging that damage was caused because of the defects in the blocks. He also refused to go to Krishnan's house. After this Pw.1 returned to his house at Kadakkavoor and had no more dealings with the other conspirators. 6. The thread of the narrative is taken up by Pw. 2 Augustine Thomas. He is the proprietor of the St. He also refused to go to Krishnan's house. After this Pw.1 returned to his house at Kadakkavoor and had no more dealings with the other conspirators. 6. The thread of the narrative is taken up by Pw. 2 Augustine Thomas. He is the proprietor of the St. Thomas Type Foundry in Kunnukuzhi, Trivandrum. He was acquainted with accused 3 as the owner of the Vijaya Press and had business dealings with him. One day about the 13th January 1960 accused 3 met Pw. 2 and told him that he wanted to buy a treadle press to start a branch of his press at Kattakada. Pw. 2 who knew that Narayanan Nair (Pw. 6) had such a press for sale approached him and Pw. 6 promised to sell it for Rs. 750. A few days later Pw. 2 conveyed this information to accused 3 and both of them went to the house of Pw. 6 to inspect the press. After some bargaining the price was finally fixed at Rs. 550. On 12th January 1960 accused 1 and 3 came in first accused's car to the house of Pw. 2 and after picking him up went to Pw. 6. They paid the money and took delivery of the press. Though the price actually paid was only Rs. 550 the sale deed was written for Rs. 1,500. They then dismantled the press and carried it in the car to Krishnan's house. Pw. 2 was told that he would be informed when the press was to be assembled and then sent away. One day early in March 1960 accused 1 and 3 took Pw. 2 to Krishnan's house. There they met accused 2. All of them together loaded the dismantled press into the first accused's car and went to the house of accused 7 at Aryanad where they met accused 5, 6 and 7. Pw. 2 and the others removed the press to the house and there Pw. 2 with the help of accused 3 assembled it. According to Pw. 2 it was at this time that his suspicions were roused as to the purpose the press was to serve. He protested but was prevailed upon to join the conspiracy. About a week later accused 3 informed Pw. 2 that he should go to the house of accused 7 on the 5th of April to help in the printing of the notes. Accordingly Pw. He protested but was prevailed upon to join the conspiracy. About a week later accused 3 informed Pw. 2 that he should go to the house of accused 7 on the 5th of April to help in the printing of the notes. Accordingly Pw. 2 went to accused 7's house at about 8-30 p. m. on 5th April 1961. There he met accused 5, 6 and 7. Some time later accused 1 to 4 and Krishnan also reached the place. Krishnan had six blocks with him and accused 3 some paper and black printing ink. Accused 3 and Pw. 2 printed proofs from all the six blocks but the results were not satisfactory. Krishnan said that accused 9 and Ravindran (Pw. 1) were responsible for the defects in the blocks. Soon afterwards, entrusting the blocks to accused 7 the others left the place. Two months later in June accused 2, 3 and 4 came in a car to the house of Pw. 2 and wanted him to help them to remove the press from the house of accused 7 to that of accused 4. Pw. 2 accompanied them to accused 7's house and from there removed the press to the house of accused 4 and a box containing paper, ink, etc., to the shop of accused 2 at Chalai. On the first or second of November 1960 Krishnan took Pw. 2 to Paravoor to the house of accused 9. Krishnan accused the ninth accused of cheating him. He said that the blocks returned by accused 9 were not the ones Krishnan had sent to him. After an exchange of words accused 9 handed over to Krishnan four blocks. Pw. 2 and Krishnan then left for Trivandrum. Before they parted Krishnan stated that he was going to see an Asari in Neyyattinkara to get the blocks corrected. Seven or eight days later Pw. 2 accompanied by accused 3 and 4 went to Krishnan's house where they met Krishnan and accused 1, 2 & 5. Krishnan gave accused 3 a letter to Narayanan Asari of Neyyattinkara (accuseds). Pw. 2 and accused 3 took the letter to accused 8 and got four blocks. These they took back to Krishnan. As the blocks were not corrected Krishnan gave them back to accused 3 to get that done. Krishnan then sent Pw. 2 away saying that he would be informed when the blocks were ready. Pw. 2 and accused 3 took the letter to accused 8 and got four blocks. These they took back to Krishnan. As the blocks were not corrected Krishnan gave them back to accused 3 to get that done. Krishnan then sent Pw. 2 away saying that he would be informed when the blocks were ready. The last contact Pw. 2 had with the other conspirators was on a day early in January 1961 when accused 1 and 4 came in a car to the house of Pw. 2 and wanted him to help them to remove the press from the house of accused 4 to a place in Pallithura as the wife of accused 4 was protesting against keeping the press in her house. Pw. 2 went there and assisted in dismantling the press, packing it in a gunny bag and loading it on to accused 1's car. Accused 1 and 4 left in the car for Pallithura while Pw. 2 returned home. After this incident Pw. 2 did not meet the others again till after his arrest. 7. The police got information regarding this crime on 4th March 1961 when they were investigating another counterfeit currency case. The information was received by Pw. 27 the Circle Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara who was enquiring into the other case, from Bhuvanendran an accused in that case. Pw. 27 immediately prepared the First Information Report and with the help of Pw. 26 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nemom began the investigation. They proceeded first to the house of accused 1 at Poovar and arrested him. They also searched his house but nothing incriminating was recovered. Accused 3 was also arrested the same day at his house at Kanjiramkulam. His house was searched and two letters one written by Krishnan and the other by accused 1 and the sale receipt for the press were recovered from there. Early next day the Police arrived at the house of accused 8 at Neyyattinkara. The accused's house as well as the press owned by him were searched, some blocks were recovered from the house and three letters sent by accused 4 were recovered from the press. Both accused 4 and Pw. 2 were arrested on the same day and though their houses were searched nothing incriminating was found. The accused's house as well as the press owned by him were searched, some blocks were recovered from the house and three letters sent by accused 4 were recovered from the press. Both accused 4 and Pw. 2 were arrested on the same day and though their houses were searched nothing incriminating was found. On 5th March 1961 the police accompanied by accused 1 and 4 went to the house of a sister-in-law of accused 4 at Pallithura. From the compound of that house accused 1 and 4 dug up parts of a treadle press which had been buried in the ground. Accused 5 and 6 were arrested the next day but a search of their house yielded nothing. Accused 2 was arrested on 7th March 1961 and his house and shop searched. The police recovered from his shop a promissory note made by accused 3 in favour of Krishnan and endorsed to accused 2 and a dealwood box containing paper, ink and other printing materials. Accused 9 was arrested at his house in Paravoor on 13th March 1961 and a search of his house yielded some letters sent to him by Krishnan and accused 4. The next day accused 7 was arrested at Poovar and on searching his house the police recovered some blocks. The last to be apprehended was Pw.1 who after being in hiding for over a month, surrendered before the Magistrate at Neyyattinkara on 13th April 1961. 8. All the accused denied participation in the conspiracy and have repudiated the searches and recoveries. Both accused 1 and accused 5 allege that they were falsely implicated in the case due to enmity of Pw. 26, the Sub-Inspector towards them, the enmity, in the case of accused 5 alleged to be due to property disputes between him and the Inspector's family. Accused 2 alleges that the case was foisted on him by Pw. 27 the Circle Inspector due to his ill-feeling towarding the accused who hid sent a petition to the Government against him. Accused 3 admits that he bought a press from Pw. 6. However according to him the press was brought in December 1959 for his own purpose and he later sold it to Krishnan. He further stated that Krishnan finding that the press was defective forced him to sign a pro-note for Rs. 1,400 in his favour to cover the price of the press. 6. However according to him the press was brought in December 1959 for his own purpose and he later sold it to Krishnan. He further stated that Krishnan finding that the press was defective forced him to sign a pro-note for Rs. 1,400 in his favour to cover the price of the press. All the other accused flatly deny having had anything to do with the crime. 9. As already noted the main evidence against the accused is provided by the testimony of the two approvers. All the learned counsels for the defence vehemently contend that the trial court was wrong in accepting the approvers' evidence. It is argued that these witnesses being self-proclaimed criminals cannot be relied upon. It would therefore be helpful to review the principles governing the appreciation of approvers' evidence before we proceed to analyse the testimony of Pws.1 and 2. 10. As the law relating to approvers' evidence has been laid down in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR. 1957 SC. 637 there is no need to refer to any earlier decision on the point. His Lordship Gajendragadkar, J. who spoke for the Court held that: "An approver is undoubtedly a competent witness under the Evidence Act. But the appreciation of his evidence has to satisfy a double test. His evidence must show that he is a reliable witness and that is a test which is common to all witnesses. If this test is satisfied the second test which still remains to be applied is that the approver's evidence must receive sufficient corroboration. This test is special to the cases of weak or tainted evidence like that of the approver." "Every person who is a competent witness is not a reliable witness and the test of reliability has to be satisfied by an approver all the more before the question of corroboration of his evidence is considered by criminal courts." Regarding the extent of corroboration His Lordship goes on to observe as follows: "Courts are naturally reluctant to act on the tainted evidence of an approver unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. But it would not be right to expect that such independent corroboration should cover the whole of the prosecution story or even all the material particulars. If such a view is adopted it would render the evidence of the accomplice wholly superfluous. But it would not be right to expect that such independent corroboration should cover the whole of the prosecution story or even all the material particulars. If such a view is adopted it would render the evidence of the accomplice wholly superfluous. On the other hand, it would not be safe to act upon such evidence merely because it is corroborated in minor particulars or incidental details because, in such a case, corroboration does not afford the necessary assurance that the main story disclosed by the approver can be reasonably and safely accepted as true." The position therefore is, that the court may accept the evidence of an approver if he is found to be reliable and his testimony receives corroboration from independent sources. The corroboration, while it need not cover his entire story or all its material particulars, should be of such a nature as to afford the assurance that the main story disclosed by him can safely be accepted. In other words while it is not necessary to insist on complete corroboration, nevertheless it is well to bear in mind the fact that the witness having won pardon for his part in the crime on the undertaking to help to obtain the conviction of his erstwhile collaborators, it is not at all unlikely that he may indulge in exaggeration or prevarication in an attempt to carry out his part of the bargain. 11. Turning to evidence of Pws.1 and 2 we may say even at the outset that it dose not come up to the standards stated above. (Paras 12 to 22 dealing with the evidence in the case are omitted) 23. We shall now advert to the evidence afforded by the various searches and recoveries. After an ineffective search in the house of accused 1 at Poovar during the night of 4th March 1961 Pw. 27 proceeded to the house of accused 3 and made a search. Ext. P-23 is the search list prepared by him and Exts. P-2, P-14 and P-24 letters are said to have been recovered from inside a table in a room in the house. The third accused asserted that he was not taken along when the Circle Inspector of Police went for effecting the search and attacks the search and recovery as spurious. P-23 is the search list prepared by him and Exts. P-2, P-14 and P-24 letters are said to have been recovered from inside a table in a room in the house. The third accused asserted that he was not taken along when the Circle Inspector of Police went for effecting the search and attacks the search and recovery as spurious. The column in the search list with the heading "whether the house owner attended the search" is significantly left blank. The search list also does not show from where the documents were taken and who took them or produced them. The attestors Pws.14 and another Prabhakaran who is not examined are not residents of the locality and were taken by Pw. 27 from a distance of 31/2 miles when he proceeded to the house of accused 3. Pw. 14 admitted that throughout the search he was standing in the verandah outside and he saw the documents for the first time only when they were brought out to the verandah for the preparation of the mahazar. An unsuccessful attempt was made by the prosecution in re-examination to explain away these damaging admissions but they did not succeed in making the witness say that he saw the letters being recovered or produced by the accused from inside the house from the table. As the evidence of the attestor serves no useful purpose the only evidence in support of the search is that of Pw. 27 the Circle Inspector who effected the search. There is no harm in the police officer who makes the search being called as a witness at the trial but in this case in view of the unfair and suspicious feature in the investigation of the case it is neither safe nor desirable to act upon his uncorroborated testimony in respect of the search and recovery. Ext. D-25 the remand application presented by the Circle Inspector to the Magistrate on the 6th only makes a general statement about the recovery of incriminating documents at the search without specifying them. The records alleged to have been recovered are Exts. P-2, P-14 and P-24. Of these Ext. P-24 remains unproved. Ext. P-2 is a letter alleged to have been written by Krishnan to accused 9 and handed over to accused 3 for getting the blocks entrusted by him. There is no reference to the blocks. The records alleged to have been recovered are Exts. P-2, P-14 and P-24. Of these Ext. P-24 remains unproved. Ext. P-2 is a letter alleged to have been written by Krishnan to accused 9 and handed over to accused 3 for getting the blocks entrusted by him. There is no reference to the blocks. It is the definite case of the accused that the Vijayan referred to there is a cousin brother of the wife of Krishnan and Pw. 4 admits that she has a cousin brother by name Vijayan. Ext. P-14 is the sale deed for the press in favour of accused 3. Accused 3 admits the purchase of the press and the sale deed, but that Ext. P-14 was substituted for the original deed with the changed date to fit in with the prosecution case. That aspect of the case has been already dealt with by us. 24. The next search was in the house of accused 8 conducted in early hours of 5th March 1961. The search list is Ext. P-27 and it is noted there that one block and three broken pieces of another block were taken from the eaves of the house of the eighth accused by his son Nagappan at the instance of the eighth accused. This search is also not attested by any neighbours though it is admitted that there are several respectable inhabitants in the immediate neighbourhood. The attestor Pw. 19 an advocate is a friend and neighbour of Pw. 27 who was taken along with him to the place. According to Pw. 19 only one block and three cut pieces of the block were recovered and all of them were produced by Nagappan from the eaves of the house as noted in Ext. P-27. However it is significant that in Ext. D-25 the remand report made by Pw. 27 after conducting all the searches it is noted that besides the complete block and three pieces of blocks referred to in the search list another rectangular bit was also recovered from the house of Nanu Asari. It is significant to note that the words, "a rectangular bit was also recovered from the house" were written after erasing what was originally written in the report. Ext. It is significant to note that the words, "a rectangular bit was also recovered from the house" were written after erasing what was originally written in the report. Ext. D-24 the certified copy of the remand report obtained from court by the accused shows that what was originally written there was another cut piece of a block was recovered from a box in the house of Nanu Asari at Neyyattinkara." The prosecution has no case that a fourth bit was recovered from a box inside the house. When Ext. D-24 the certified copy was shown to Pw. 27 he had to admit that that was what he wrote originally but added that he happened to write that confusing the recovery of some letters the same day from a box in the shop of accused 8 and he happened to make the correction then and there when he became aware of the mistake. When the matter was pursued and it was definitely suggested to him that the correction was made after the record was produced in court he came out with the explanation that he might have forgotten to make the correction in the duplicate copy sent along with the original and the certified copy must have been prepared with reference to that copy. The truth of this suggestion could best have been proved by the production of the duplicate, but no such record is available. The explanation for making the mistaken entry as well as the explanation offered for the difference in the entry in the original remand report and the certified copy supplied from the court do not appear to be acceptable. The defence would contend that the confusion and the corrections are the result of an attempt on the part of the prosecution to distribute the materials they happened to come by at several places with a view to rope in all the accused. Whatever that be, we should say, that we are not satisfied with the manner in which the record was prepared and the subsequent correction made in it at whatever stage it was done. Pw. 19 is no doubt a practising advocate and in the normal course his evidence should have carried weight with the court. However in view of the fact that several other respectable gentlemen including advocates were available in the locality, the conduct of Pw. Pw. 19 is no doubt a practising advocate and in the normal course his evidence should have carried weight with the court. However in view of the fact that several other respectable gentlemen including advocates were available in the locality, the conduct of Pw. 27 in taking along with him a friend and neighbour of his from near his house, taken along with the suspicious nature of the records make it difficult for us to act upon it. The recovery does not attract S.27 of the Evidence Act as the eighth accused was not in police custody at that time and his alleged conduct in pointing out the place where the blocks were kept or his instruction to his son to hand them over to the police even if true cannot conclusively indicate that he had kept the blocks there. It is equally possible that he was aware of some mischief played by his son and was only instructing him to hand over the blocks to the police. Admittedly the eighth accused was in bed unable to move about and as such it cannot be said that the blocks were recovered from his possession and that was the main circumstance which contributed to his acquittal. From the house of accused 8 the search party proceeded to the press owned by him. The prosecution case is that the eighth accused after the search of his house directed his son Nagappan to go to the press and Nagappan accordingly accompanied the Circle Inspector to the press and took out Exts. P-26, P-28 and P-29 letters from a table. Ext. P-30 search list does not indicate that the search was conducted in the presence of the owner or anybody to represent him, nor does it indicate from where the letters were taken or by whom. It is also significant that in Ext. D-25 remand report filed by the Circle Inspector which refers to the various searches and recoveries made that night no reference is made to the search of the press or the recovery of the letters. The letters recovered purport to be letters written by accused 4 to accused 8 or to accused 8 and his son Nagappan. The letters were not proved "to have been written by accused 4 and two of the letters do not bear any date at all. The letters recovered purport to be letters written by accused 4 to accused 8 or to accused 8 and his son Nagappan. The letters were not proved "to have been written by accused 4 and two of the letters do not bear any date at all. The letters in the inland letter form alone appear to be dated 24th February 1961 and there is nothing in the letters to indicate that they refer to any arrangements for printing currency notes. 25. The recovery of the press from Pallithura from an open compound belonging to a sister of the fourth accused may now be considered. The prosecution has no consistent case regarding this recovery. While Ext, P-25 the mahazar recites that the recovery was effected on the information given by accused 1, Pw. 27 gives evidence that it was the joint information given by accused 1 and accused 4 that led to the recovery. The latter version appears to be more probable. The first accused was arrested at Poovar on 4th March 1961 during the night and according to Pw. 27 the information that the press was buried in the compound of accused 4's sister at Pallithura was given by him immediately after the arrest. If that is true there seems to be no reason for having waited till 6 p. m. on 5th March 1961 to effect the recovery. The fourth accused was arrested only at 4-45 p. m. and it is only then that they proceeded to the place with both the accused to effect the recovery. When a fact is discovered in consequence of information received from one of several persons charged with an offence and when others gave like information it is not possible to treat the discovery as having been made from any one of them. The use of the word "a person" in singular in S.21 not without significance. It appears that the word was used in singular designedly because the joint statement of a number of persons cannot be said to be information received from any particular one of them. 26. The next search was conducted in the shop of the second accused on 7th March 1961. Ext. P-20 is the search list. This search was conducted without obtaining the warrant from the Magistrate. 26. The next search was conducted in the shop of the second accused on 7th March 1961. Ext. P-20 is the search list. This search was conducted without obtaining the warrant from the Magistrate. It is a common feature of all the searches made in this case that not one of them was conducted after obtaining a warrant from the Magistrate. True, the explanation that as delay would defeat the purposes of the search, might be valid in the first two searches made in the night of 4th March 1961, but such an explanation is not available in the case of this search. The second accused was arrested at 6 a. m. on 7th March 1961 and the search was conducted only at 6-45 p.m. In Ext. P-20 search list item 17 is Ext. P-11 pronote the date of which was corrected from 2nd February 1960 to 2nd April 1960 of which detailed reference has been made earlier. This tampering with the record also tarnishes the search and recovery. Pw. 10 is the attestor who is cited to prove the search. He is one living three or four miles off from the place and there is no reason why he should have been preferred when many neighbours were admittedly available in the locality. A definite suggestion was made to the witness that he is related to the Sub-Inspector though that fact was denied by him. The willingness of the witness to fall in with the evidence of the Sub-Inspector that the correction in the date of the note was made by the Sub-Inspector then and there is sure indication that he is prepared to go to any extent to oblige the police. 27. The next search is of accused 9's house from where Exts. P8 to P10 and P22 and P-22 (a) letters are alleged to have been recovered. That search was effected on 13th March 1961 and the search list is Ext. P-21. In this case also there does not seem to be any justification for a search without warrant. This search is also not attested by any witness of the locality and the evidence of Pw. 13 cited to prove the search indicates that when he went near the gate of the house of the ninth accused he found the police jeep already there and the policemen inside. This search is also not attested by any witness of the locality and the evidence of Pw. 13 cited to prove the search indicates that when he went near the gate of the house of the ninth accused he found the police jeep already there and the policemen inside. According to him the police went inside and returned after three-fourth of an hour and he was all the time waiting at the gate. The admission of the ninth accused that some letters were taken from a wire which was hanging on the verandah would not prove the prosecution case that these five letters were recovered from inside the house. Three of the letters are written by Krishna Panicker and the other by accused 4. None of the letters contain any reference to the printing of currency notes. 28. The search in the house of accused 7 may be considered next. It was conducted on 14th March 1961 and Ext. P-19 is the search list. M.O.2 series (six blocks) are alleged to have been taken by accused 7 from inside a table the key of which was handed over by his wife. The presence of the accused or the fact that his wife handed over the key of the table is not mentioned in the search list [Ext. P-19]. Pw. 27 admits that though as early as 5th March 1961 he got information that an attempt at printing counterfeit notes was made in the house, he did not care to visit the place or to make a search. It looks as if police were waiting to arrest the accused before searching his house. It is significant to note in this connection that the seventh accused is referred to in the First Information Report as Gangadharan of Poonthurai and in the charge-sheet filed after completing the investigation he is stated to be running a tea shop at Poonthura. There is no mention that he was residing at Aryanad where the house searched is situated. Pw. 9 the attestor to the search would admit that the house was lying vacant for four or five months preceding the recovery. There is no reliable evidence that this house was ever in the possession of the seventh accused and the belated recovery appears to be suspicious. Pw. 9 the attestor to the search would admit that the house was lying vacant for four or five months preceding the recovery. There is no reliable evidence that this house was ever in the possession of the seventh accused and the belated recovery appears to be suspicious. It is significant that even in the case of this search which was leisurely conducted the police did not care to obtain a warrant from the Magistrate. 29. Before we leave this part of the case we are compelled to make a few observations in general about the searches conducted in the case. It is strange that all the searches were conducted at night though some of them could more conveniently have been done during day time. Though there is nothing in law that prohibits searches being carried out during night, it is best that when not inconvenient they should be conducted during day time so as to avoid any complaint on the part of the accused that there was room for unfair practices like 'planting' articles. Again even in cases where there was no hurry to conduct searches they have been carried out without obtaining the necessary warrant. Where lack of time is not a consideration search without warrant is not proper and the recovery would itself come under suspicion. Also in spite of the fact that respectable neighbours of the locality were available to witness the search invariably people from a distance were taken along to witness the search. Where respectable persons can be found in the neighbourhood and the police officer making the search takes with him persons who come from a distant locality the door is left open for the charge that he was prompted by a desire to have such witnesses as would be easily persuaded to support any story which he might put forward, "S. 103 Criminal Procedure Code was enacted to ensure fair dealing and a feeling of confidence and security amongst the public in regard to this necessary invasion of a private right regarded as most sacred. In order to give effect to this object it is necessary that the persons selected should be unprejudiced and uninterested in the result of what they have to take part in." - Vide In re Rajabather AIR. 1959 Madras 450. 30. In order to give effect to this object it is necessary that the persons selected should be unprejudiced and uninterested in the result of what they have to take part in." - Vide In re Rajabather AIR. 1959 Madras 450. 30. It is now settled law that non-compliance with the provisions of S.103 and 165 of the Code will not vitiate the trial or make evidence of the search officer inadmissible in evidence as was held by this Court in Velayudhan v. State 1960 KLT. 753. However these salutory provisions are intended to be faithfully observed. It is one thing to say that non-compliance with the provisions of the Code will not vitiate a trial and entirely different to say that these provisions may be ignored. If the provisions are contravened without proper justification there is the possibility of the search and the recovery being viewed with suspicion and courts may refuse to act upon the solitary evidence of the investigating officer. 31. The learned counsels for the accused characterised the investigation as unfair and referred to a series of circumstances. Though we do not think it necessary to go into all the instances, one or two of the more important points may be referred to. The non-examination of Bhuvanendran who gave the first information in the case is a serious omission. The learned Sessions Judge himself has observed that it would have been better if Bhuvanendran was examined so that the court would have known how much of his information was from his personal knowledge and how much was gathered otherwise. Being himself an accused in another counterfeit case he could very easily implicate his enemies. Unless he is in the box to be examined the information alleged to have been conveyed by him to Pw. 27 is mere hearsay. He was cited in the charge-sheet as a witness and is seen to have been present in court on more occasions than one and no satisfactory explanation is offered for withholding his evidence. In the nature of this case we feel that he is a witness who is essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based and as such a material witness. In the words of Sarkar, J. in Narain v. State of Punjab AIR. 1959 SC. In the nature of this case we feel that he is a witness who is essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based and as such a material witness. In the words of Sarkar, J. in Narain v. State of Punjab AIR. 1959 SC. 484: "When he (a material witness) is deliberately unfairly kept back then a serious reflection is cast on the propriety of the trial itself and the validity of the conviction resulting from it may be open to challenge." 32. Similarly the failure to search the house of the ringleader, the deceased Krishnan who was accused 2 in the First Information Report is characterised as a deliberate attempt to fabricate evidence. This contention is also not without force. Pw. 4 the widow was only too willing to oblige the prosecution by giving evidence since they had obliged her. Krishnan her husband was friendly with the block maker N.S. Nair and there is no knowing whether the house of Krishnan did not contain some blocks. If on search, blocks or other incriminating materials were found in the house of Krishnan after his death, then Pw. 4 the widow would have had to answer for their possession in which case she would not have been available for proving the letters alleged to have been written by her husband. As Pw. 4 was willing to oblige the police by supplying the missing links they did not take the trouble of getting the handwriting compared by an expert or making some admitted handwriting available to the court for comparison. 33. Attempts to introduce false or doubtful evidence appear to be a special feature in the investigation of this case. No doubt counterfeiters are pests of society & any attempt at exterminating them with an iron hand will be commendable, but the theory of "the end justifying the means" is not to be followed by Police Officers in the collection of evidence even though it may be extremely difficult to get really clever criminals convicted by honest investigation. Investigating Officers will do well to keep in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR. 1960 SC. 866: "Investigation into criminal offences must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may lead to grievance of accused that investigation is carried on unfairly or with ulterior motive. Investigating Officers will do well to keep in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR. 1960 SC. 866: "Investigation into criminal offences must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may lead to grievance of accused that investigation is carried on unfairly or with ulterior motive. The administration of criminal justice requires that every act done by the agency responsible for the investigation of crime must be fair, upright and free from any fault of any sort." We are constrained to remark that the investigation in this case has not impressed us as fair or free from faults. 34. In view of the many suspicious features in the investigation of the case and the want of legal evidence we are compelled to acquit all the accused. The evidence of the approvers is naturally tainted and the evidence adduced by way of corroboration is even more tainted. The effect is but to doubly reinforce the taint. We feel that there is a substratum of truth in this case and that in all probability some of the accused before us are guilty. While realising our duty to disengage the truth from the falsehood we find it extremely difficult to do so in this case as the very foundations of the prosecution are shaken by the introduction of false evidence. 35. In the result the appeals by the accused are allowed and their convictions set aside. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are set at liberty. The appeal and the revision filed by the State are dismissed. Dismissed.