JUDGMENT K. Sadasivan, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred by the various accused in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1970 on the file of the Sessions Court of Quilon. Criminal Appeal 154 is by accused No. 25; No. 155 by accused No. 12; No. 156 by accused Nos. 3, 157 by accused No. 14; No. 158 by accused Nos. 1, 7 and 21; No. 159 by accused No. 22; No. 161 by accused Nos. 4 and 9; No. 162 by accused No. 8; No. 168 by accused No. 15; No. 181 by accused No. 2; No. 214 by accused No. 6; No. 224 by accused Nos. 5,11,19, 23 & 24; No. 242 by accused No. 10 and No. 26 by accused No. 17. There were, on the whole 29 persons in the array of accused, of whom one died and 3 are absconding. Of the 25 accused who were put on trial, four have been acquitted and they are accused Nos. 13, 16, 18 and 20. The accused were charged with the offence of counterfeiting two-rupee currency notes in pursuance of a conspiracy for the purpose. The case of the prosecution is that the conspiracy first dawned in the minds of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the absconding accused Sivanandan and Kunju of Mayyanad. They met in the second accused's Rajan Bakery at Anchalummood at Quilon, in or about 1967 and in the course of their activities in furtherance of the conspiracy, the 1st accused sought the assistance of accused No. 15, one Raghavan alias Bose and through him secured the services of Purushothaman Pillai alias Master (since deceased) from whom M.Os. 41 to 44 and 151 zinc plates were procured. M.Os. 3 and 4 blocks, made in zinc plates were engraved by Purushothaman Pillai in a building obtained from P.W. 6 the President of Thrikkaruva Panchayat. The building was obtained possession of from P.W. 6 by the 1st accused who was his classmate and friend. The funds for the project were raised at the initial stages by the sale of a property belonging to the 7th accused's wife (the 7th accused is the brother-in-law of the 1st accused). The 2nd accused and Sivanandan the absconding accused (they are brothers) also raised some money by pledging ornaments through the help of P.W. 7, a pansupari merchant opposite the second accused's shop. The 2nd accused and Sivanandan the absconding accused (they are brothers) also raised some money by pledging ornaments through the help of P.W. 7, a pansupari merchant opposite the second accused's shop. In addition, the 3rd accused Ramachandran Pillai also contributed monies for the success of the enterprise by selling an item of property that he had. The sale was effected by his power holder P.W. 14. While their activities were thus in progress P.W. 6, the owner of the building some how got information about it and to ascertain the truth about the matter, he one day made a surprise visit of the building and saw in one of the rooms, M.Os. 3 and 4 plates and other materials placed in a deal wood box, intended for the making of counterfeit currency notes. He could not tolerate it and he at once asked them to quit the house. They accordingly vacated the building; but that did not discourage or deter them, from proceeding with their nefarious undertaking. Accused No. 2 and Kunju of Mayyanad were sent by the 1st accused to Sivakasi for the purchase of ink and paper. They went to Sivkasi on 21st February 1968 and stayed in Sree Venkiteswara Lodge belonging to P.W. 15, Karuppayya Nadar. The address furnished by them to the proprietor of the lodge was 'Vasudevan, Ran Bakery, Mavelikkara'. On 22nd February 1968, two reams of Westcost Special Bond Paper was purchased by them from Krishna Paper Stores belonging to P.W. 16, and letter press ink of different colours was purchased from "Three Yes Traders"t there. The ink was purchased under the bogus name 'Vasudevan Printing Press, Alleppey.' 2. The blocks attempted by them at first were found defective and not up to the mark. So the services of the 4th accused Anandan, a photographer at Oachira were sought. He supplied M.O. 53 series blocks, 5 in number. Accused No. 5 Sivasankara Pillai, a binder and accused No. 6 Sasi who was working as am assistant in a press, were also brought into the conspiracy and with their help accused Nos. 1 and 2 and Purushothaman Pillai proceeded to Oachira in a taxi car to purchase a hand-press. They approached P.W. 27, the owner of Asan Memorial Press. The 4th accused was also helpful in this direction. Accused, Nos. 1 and 2 and Purushothaman Pillai proceeded to Oachira in a taxi car to purchase a hand-press. They approached P.W. 27, the owner of Asan Memorial Press. The 4th accused was also helpful in this direction. Accused, Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and Purusothaman Pillai together with P.W. 27 went in a taxi to Cheppad where P.W. 22 was reported to be keeping a hand-press. That press was purchased from P.W. 22 on 6th May 1968 for Rs. 600 (M.O. 12 is that press). The press was fitted to a table; but that was detached from the table and bundled up. The table was left in the Asan Memorial Press and the bundled press with all its accessories was transported in the taxi, to the 1st accused's house at Anchalumood. 3. The next endeavour of the conspirators was to find a convenient place for installing the press and printing the fake notes. Accused Nos. 1, 3 and Sivanandan with this object in view went to forest areas like Thenmala, Aryankavu and Eroor and in their sojourn they came into contact with P.W. 23 Narayana Pillai, a Member of the Eroor Panchayat who was once a member of the Marxist Communist Party to which accused Nos. 1 and 3 belonged. He introduced them to P.W. 24, Ramakrishnan Nair, proprietor of Travancore Match Works at Thenmala. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 requested P.W. 24, for leasing out to them his match factory. From P.W.23 the purchase for which the match factory was asked for became known to P.W. 24 and on knowing about it he expressed his disapprobation and reprimanded his friend P.W. 23 for encouraging such unwholesome activities. Accused thereupon approached P.W. 25 the Sree Karyakkar of Aryankavu Temple and asked for two rooms of the Bhajana Matom attached to the temple for about two weeks under the pretext that the 3rd accused's wife wanted to offer Bhajana at the temple. By this time P.W. 24 met the Sree Karyakkar and warned him against letting out rooms to the accused. The Sree Karyakkar getting scent of the purpose for which rooms were asked for by the accused, resiled and thus the accused's attempts were frustrated there also. But that did not deter them from proceeding with the scheme. By this time P.W. 24 met the Sree Karyakkar and warned him against letting out rooms to the accused. The Sree Karyakkar getting scent of the purpose for which rooms were asked for by the accused, resiled and thus the accused's attempts were frustrated there also. But that did not deter them from proceeding with the scheme. The first accused sought the help of his brother-in-law the 7th accused in the matter and the latter said that ne would find a suitable place at Channapetta. The 7th accused and Sivanandan thereupon proceeded to Channapetta in P.W. 26's taxi car and contacted the 23rd accused Shahul Hameed who is the uncle of the 7th accused. The 23rd accused and his nephew the 24th accused Abdul Salam were very much helpful in the matter. The 24th accused's house Nellivilaputhen Veedu was itself offered and there M.O. 12 press was finally installed. The press was transported to that place in K.L.K. 4599, a taxi of which P.W. 26 was the driver. The table M.O. 18 on which the press was installed was supplied by the 23rd accused and the press was actually installed on the night of 25th May 1968, The accused's next lookout was for selecting an experienced printer for the printing of the notes and such a person was found in the 13th accused Purushothaman who was then working in Radhas Printers, Quilon belonging to P.W. 31. He had handled foreign and Indian Presses and thus obtained proficiency in the art of colour printing. He was taken to Channampetta by accused 2 and 7. The ink purchased from Sivakasi was found insufficient and so some ink had to be purchased from P.W. 34 a dealer at Quilon. When actual printing was started the bracket of the press went out of order and that had, therefore, to be detached and taken to Rajmohan Engineering Works at Kayamkulam of P.W. 67 for repair. That was taken to Kayamkulam by accused 1, 2, 3, 5, and Sivanandan along with P.W. 30 and got it welded and taken back to Channampetta. On their way back to Channampetta with the welded part of the press they met the 6th accused at Karunagappally. He is an experienced printer and was then attached to the new India Printers of P.W. 35. Colour printing was his specialty. On their way back to Channampetta with the welded part of the press they met the 6th accused at Karunagappally. He is an experienced printer and was then attached to the new India Printers of P.W. 35. Colour printing was his specialty. He was, therefore, grafted into the conspiracy and he assisted the 1st accused in the purchase of articles like paper ink ,etc, to be used for counterfeiting. The 6th accused hails from Muttada in Trivandrum district; but his wife's house is at Karunagappally. The 6th accused in the company of the 1st accused purchased a printing ink from P. A. George and Company, Quilon. The paper was cut into 1/16th demy size at the Jothi Press, Quilon of which P.W. 37 is the foreman. P.W. 37 was told that the cut paper was required for printing colour labels. They also purchased a hammer M.O. 99 and nuts M.O. 113 and put all these articles in a bag M.O. 17 and spent one day in the Samas Lodge, Quilon and proceeded the next day to Channampetta and fixed the welded rod in the press. Thereafter printing was started in right earnest by the 6th accused in the house of accused No. 24. After the printing had progressed to some extent it was found that the disk of the press was not rotating with sufficient ease and to rectify that mistake the press was taken to the workshop of Mahani Mastry P.W. 54., at Asramam on the 19th July, 1968 corresponding to 4th Karkidagam 1143. After repairs the press was taken back to the house of accused No. 24 at Channampetta and printing was resumed. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, Purushothaman Pillai, accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 used to frequent the house of the 24th accused and watch the printing. In their trips they used to carry backery goods like biscuits, buns etc. Sometimes even rice was carried by them to the place, for the use of the persons working there. The 5th accused had obtained an old numbering machine (M.O. 19) from one Gopala Pillai, P.W. 22, a retired employee of the Malayalarajyam Press. But that was found not working well and so had to be given for repair to P.W. 32, a manufacturer of rubber stamps and blocks at Quilon. The 5th accused had obtained an old numbering machine (M.O. 19) from one Gopala Pillai, P.W. 22, a retired employee of the Malayalarajyam Press. But that was found not working well and so had to be given for repair to P.W. 32, a manufacturer of rubber stamps and blocks at Quilon. That was found beyond repair and so a new machine, which contained numbering stick with the digits and alphabets, was ordered for. Accordingly P.W. 32 made a new one for Rs. 80. Numbering ink, serial prefixes and numbering pad were also procured by the 5th accused and these accessories were fixed to the machine in their proper order and printing was resumed. A sufficiently good number of notes were printed and the next attempt of the conspirators was to utter the notes. Some agents and distributors were accordingly found for the purpose. One such person was accused No. 25, Hajara Ummal of Edava. She was contacted through accused No. 23. P.W. 55, Rajan Asary was a goldsmith usually employed by her for making ornaments. In order to find funds for the purchase of counterfeit notes, she had to sell her gold Odyanam weighing 28 sovereigns to P.W. 91 Rajagopalan Nair for Rs. 3,400. With this amount she went to Channampetta in the company of Rajan Asary and P.W. 57 Unnikrishnan Nair, her servant boy. They spent one night in the house of accused No. 23 and in the course of their stay there, accused No. 23 introduced to her accused 1 and others. 4000 counterfeit two-rupee notes were purchased by her for Rs. 3,500. This was the first transaction connected with the uttering of the notes, and encouraged by the success of their venture, some more notes were printed and after that they dismantled the, press. The press was first detached from the table and then the blocks, papers and other accessories and utensils used for counterfeiting were all bundled up along with the press and carried the same in a taxi brought by P.W. 26 and taken to Anchalummoodu. Accused Nos. 1 and 6 and Sivanandan were then in a jubilant mood and to celebrate the success of their project they went to the Ambika Studio, Quilon owned by P.W. 58 and took their group photo (M.Os. 11 and 31). Then they made some purchases like textile goods, bata shoe, etc. Accused Nos. 1 and 6 and Sivanandan were then in a jubilant mood and to celebrate the success of their project they went to the Ambika Studio, Quilon owned by P.W. 58 and took their group photo (M.Os. 11 and 31). Then they made some purchases like textile goods, bata shoe, etc. The 6th accused cut the printed counterfeit notes into size with the help of the cutting machine purchased from P.W. 63. P.W. 63 was bid that they wanted the cutting machine to cut into size some labels. Out of curiosity the witness went to the accused to see the Lables cut in the machine and to his astonishment he saw a number of two-rupee currency notes being cut into size and he reprimanded the 6th accused for the dare-devil act he was doing. The 6th accused thereupon left the place with the cut counterfeit notes in his bag and at Kayamkulam bus stand 3,800 such notes were given to the 2nd accused, out of which one half was taken by the 16th accused. The 8th accused Sukumaran has played an important role in uttering the notes. He was at the time the sales-man in an arrack shop at Oachira. 9th accused is one Krishnan, a pipewell contractor who was a frequenter of Sukumaran's arrack shop. Accused No. 10 is Sadanandan of Kallampalam who was a friend of the 9th accused. The 10th accused wrote M.Os. 46 and 47 letters to the 9th accused and through such correspondence some 900 counterfeit notes were marketed by the 9th accused to 10th accused. The letters were recovered subsequently from the 9th accused's wife's house on the information supplied by the 9th accused himself. The news that the 10th accused was possessed of some counterfeit notes reached P.W. 69, Kamalasanan, the owner of Santha Textiles at Varkala. On 16th October 1968 P.W. 69 contacted the 10th accused through one Raghavan, a toddy shop contractor and all the three of them proceeded to Oachira and after meeting the 8th accused at Oachira, they went back to Quilon and 900 counterfeit notes were supplied to Raghavan Contractor under a street light near a temple; but Raghavan after scrutinising the notes said that they were too clumsy, and unmarketable. So he returned the same; but the notes were taken by the 10th accused and out of that 200 notes were uttered by him to the 11th accused, which he kept in a trunk in his house and that was later recovered by the police on information supplied by the 11th accused. Another bundle of 200 notes was delivered by the 10th accused to the 12th accused one Raghavan of Ottur and from his house 152 notes were later recovered by the police. Some 500 notes were carried by the 10th accused when he went to Trivandrum on 28th October 1968. He stayed in the S. N. Lodge opposite to the Medical College from 28th October 1968 to 30th October 1968. The room he occupied was in the upstairs. In the ground floor P.W. 77 was having his New Bombay Textiles. The 10th accused told P.W. 77 that he had gone there to purchase cows from Neyyattinkara; but due to some tooth trouble he could not proceed to Neyyattinkara and had to remain in the Lodge for some days for treatment in the Medical College Hospital. So saying he entrusted a bundle to P.W.77 for safe keeping, on promising to take it back the next day. But he never turned up again to get it back. P.W. 77 was therefore, compelled to open the bundle and to his astonishment he found that the bundle contained two-rupee counterfeit notes. On the advice of his lawyer he destroyed the notes. P.W. 79 is another person whose help was sought by the 9th accused for circulation of the notes; but he had no money with him to be invested in the venture. He suggested to the 9th accused that P.W. 80 Nanu, who is his own wife's uncle, would be helpful in the matter. So the 9th accused approached P.W. 80"who in his turn directed him to the 22nd accused Raghavan Pillai alias Kuttan Pillai. The 22nd accused approached P.W. 72, a Chitty Foreman for some funds for the purchase of the notes and all of them (accused Nos. 9, 22 and P.Ws. 79, 80 and 72) proceeded to Oachira and from there in the company of accused Nos. 4, 8 and 9 they came to Chinnakkada, where the 8th accused Sukumaran delivered 300 counterfeit notes to the 22nd accused for Rs. 300. 9, 22 and P.Ws. 79, 80 and 72) proceeded to Oachira and from there in the company of accused Nos. 4, 8 and 9 they came to Chinnakkada, where the 8th accused Sukumaran delivered 300 counterfeit notes to the 22nd accused for Rs. 300. These notes were recovered from the provision store of the 22nd accused on information supplies by Nanu. Another recovery was from the 17th accused. He was introduced to the 4th accused by P.W. 82. He also contacted the 18th accused Narayanan alias Sahodaran, a native of Munroe Island. 200 counterfeit notes were sold to him and another 200 notes to the 18th accused by accused Nos. 4 and 8. The 17th accused contacted P.W. 88, who is a close relative of the 21st accused Nelson; the latter purchased 80 notes from accused No. 17. As many as 111 counterfeit notes were recovered from the 17th accused's wife's house by the police. The 17th accused had sold 77 counterfeit notes to the 21st accused for Rs. 77 and on the basis of the information supplied by him they were recovered from the house of the 21st accused. Accused Nos. 2, 4and 8 together sold 200 counterfeit notes to the 18th accused, who in his turn tried to sell 25 of them to P.W. 95. P.W. 95 was not agreeable for purchasing the notes. Then the 18th accused entrusted the notes to him for temporary custody promising to take them back later, but the investigation revealed that these 25 notes were later destroyed by P.W. 95. The 18th accused also stated that he had sold 68 notes to the 19th accused, Subair for Rs. 68 and another 11 counterfeit notes to his nephew the 20th accused, Peethambaran. On the basis of the information conveyed by the 18th accused the notes were recovered from the 19th accused's house (from a trunk kept in one of the rooms of the house). The notes that the 20th accused had were recovered from his own shirt pocket by the Investigating Officer. 15th Accused, Bose uttered about 100 counterfeit notes to the 14th accused Kamarudeen for Rs. 100. Himself and the 14th accused went to Mundackel on 18th October 1968 on bicycle and gave five such notes to P.W. 2, Hajara Umma and purchased from her rice for the amount. 15th Accused, Bose uttered about 100 counterfeit notes to the 14th accused Kamarudeen for Rs. 100. Himself and the 14th accused went to Mundackel on 18th October 1968 on bicycle and gave five such notes to P.W. 2, Hajara Umma and purchased from her rice for the amount. This transaction was the first in the series and as a matter of fact the police were moved in the matter on the basis of this transaction. Out of the balance notes, which the 14th accused had, the police were able to recover 69 notes from him later. One of the notes in the possession of P.W. 2 was shown by her the next day to P.W. 1, Karunakaran, a D.C.P. student of the S.N. College, who suspecting it to be counterfeit handed over the note to the police. It is on the basis of this information that the F.I. statement was recorded. In the course of the investigation confessional statements were recorded from accused Nos. 2 and 7 Ext. P-86 is the confessional statement of the 2nd accused and Ext. P-98 is that of the 7th accused. 4. The charge was denied in toto by all the accused. The learned Judge on a consideration of the evidence has found the accused guilty of the various offences with which they were charged excepting accused Nos. 13, 16, 18 and 20 who were acquitted. 5. The first link in the prosecution evidence connecting the accused with the crime is the conspiracy to commit the crime of counterfeiting. The conspiracy originated, according to the prosecution, in the mind of the 1st accused Ahammed, 2nd accused Janardhanan who was the proprietor, Rajan Bakery at Anchalumood and his brother Sivanandan, who is absconding, and another Kunju of Mayyanad who is also absconding. The object of the conspiracy, as it has come out from the evidence and subsequent conduct of the accused, was to counterfeit two-rupee currency notes, to be in possession of such notes and to traffic in them. The other accused were also grafted into the conspiracy at later stages, as required by the exigency of the occasion. One Purushothaman Pillai alias Master, who was the proprietor of Ravivarma Studio at Ramankulangara, who subsequently died, was an active member of the conspiracy. This Purushothaman Pillai was brought into the conspiracy by the 15th accused Bose, who is one of the later recruits to the conspiracy. One Purushothaman Pillai alias Master, who was the proprietor of Ravivarma Studio at Ramankulangara, who subsequently died, was an active member of the conspiracy. This Purushothaman Pillai was brought into the conspiracy by the 15th accused Bose, who is one of the later recruits to the conspiracy. The 7th accused, brother-in-law of the 1st accused, was also a subsequent recruit. He was taken into the confidence of the initial conspirators. The negatives and plates were all made by Purushothaman Pillai; but the negatives so made were found to be not up to the mark. So the 4th accused, Anandan, a photographer at Oachira was brought in. Accused Nos. 5, 6 and 13 were press employees, whose service was also found necessary for the success of the venture and accordingly they were also grafted in to the conspiracy. The press and other accessories were installed in the house of the 24th accused at Channampetta with the active help and co-operation of the 7th accused's uncle the 23rd accused. Thus accused Nos. 1 to 7, 15, 23 and 24 should be considered as principal conspirators involed in the counterfeiting and the other accused were engaged in uttering the counterfeit notes knowing them to be counterfeit. About the subsequent recruits to the conspiracy including those who were engaged in uttering the counterfeit currency, the argument was advanced that on conviction could be entered against them under section 120B of the I.P.C. According to the learned counsel, only persons who were in the conspiracy at the initial stages could be brought under section 120 B because the agreement to do the illegal act was between them only, and not between any of the persons who were subsequently grafted into the movement. The position cannot be accepted. "The gist of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement itself where the object of the agreement is to do an illegal act. Express proof of agreement is rarely available and may not even be necessary. Agreement can be inferred from over tacts and conduct. If it is proved that the persons charged pursued by their acts the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another part, with a view to attaining the object they were pursuing, the inference of conspiracy will be justified. Indeed where the agreement is to commit an offence, no over tact need be proved. If it is proved that the persons charged pursued by their acts the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another part, with a view to attaining the object they were pursuing, the inference of conspiracy will be justified. Indeed where the agreement is to commit an offence, no over tact need be proved. Over tacts raise a presumption of agreement, knowledge of the purpose of conspiracy, and properly looked at, they evidence the existence of a concerted intention." (Samunder Singh v. State A.I.R. 1965 Cal. 598). On this point the Supreme Court has observed: "The agreement is the gist of the offence. In order to constitute a single general conspiracy there must be a common design and a common intention of all to work in furtherance of the common design, Each conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose. Each one is aware that he has a part to play in a general conspiracy though he not know all its secrets or the means by which the common purpose to be accomplished. The evil scheme may be promoted by a few, some may drop out and some a join at a later stage, but the con spiracy continues until it is broken up. The conspiracy may develop successive stages. There may be a general plan to accomplish the common design by such means as may from time to time be found expedient. New techniques may be invented and new means may be devised for advancement of the common plan." (Vide Hussain Umer Kochra v. Dalipsinghji A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 45). 6. The argument, therefore, that some of the accused joined the venture only at a later stage and they should not be implicated in the conspiracy as such cannot hold water. The purpose or object of the conspiracy was to counterfeit two-rupee Indian currency, possess and utter it. So the scheme will continue until, achieving its purpose and until it is broken. Any person who joins the scheme in the interval must be pinned with the knowledge of the conspiracy as whole and he cannot escape saying that the design entertained by the conspirators at the initial stages was not known to him. So the scheme will continue until, achieving its purpose and until it is broken. Any person who joins the scheme in the interval must be pinned with the knowledge of the conspiracy as whole and he cannot escape saying that the design entertained by the conspirators at the initial stages was not known to him. Even though some of the accused were not in the enterprise at the beginning stage, they came subsequently with the preparedness to play the respective parts assigned to them. So all the accused who have participated in any stage of the conspiracy must be held liable under section 120B of the Code. 7. The circumstances proved in the case are sufficient to connect the particular accused with the conspiracy. In a criminal conspiracy, what is to be proved is agreement and common design. It is true that this proof need not be by direct evidence and that existence of a conspiracy may even be a matter of of inference deduced from criminal acts done in pursuance of a common criminal purpose." (Vide In re Kodur Thimma Reddi A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 758). 8. In the present case there is evidence to show that the conspiracy was hatched at Anchalumood in the Rajan Bakery, of which the 2nd accused was the proprietor. 9. Accused No. 1 and the two absconding accused Sivanandan and Kunju of Mayyanad met in the said bakery and conspired. Later, the other accused were recruited stage after stage, and each one of them was assigned specific acts, according to the proficiency shown by each of them. The 15th accused was contacted by the 1st accused and then they contacted deceased Purushothaman Pillai through P.W.8. Engraving the plates was first started in Puthenvayalil Puthen Veedu of P.W.6, who was the then Panchayat President. His house was procured by them by false pretences and one day when he made a surprise visit of the house he saw accused Nos. 1,15 and Purushothaman Pillai actually engaged in the work of engraving. The various purchases made by them and the implements used for the work have been proved by the production of cash bills and registers by the various traders. 1,15 and Purushothaman Pillai actually engaged in the work of engraving. The various purchases made by them and the implements used for the work have been proved by the production of cash bills and registers by the various traders. The 2nd accused and Kunju of Mayyanad were sent to Sivakasi for purchasing ink and paper and this part of the prosecution case has been proved by the evidence of P.W. 15, in whose lodge at Sivakasi they stayed. The address furnished by them to P.W. 15 was a bogus one, 'Vasudevan, Ran Bakery, Mavelikkara'. Paper was purchased by them from Krishna Paper Stores at Sivakasi, of which P.W. 16 is the proprietor and the ink was purchased from Three Yes Traders, Sivakasi, of which P.W. 18 was the proprietor. These purchases were made under the assumed name Vasudevan Printing Press, Alleppey.' M.Os. 3 and 4 engravings, having been found not up to the mark, they had to depend on 4th accused Anandan, who had some experience in the making of blocks. M.O. 53 blocks, were supplied by him and thereafter he was also functioning as an active member in the conspiracy. The meeting of the conspirators often times in various places has also been proved by unassailable evidence. P.W. 45 speaks about the 4th accused and Karuppannachi of the Reddiar Press, from where M.O. 53 was procured, meeting often in his arrack shop at Chinnakkada. This part of the case is also proved by the evidence of P.W. 12, a taxi driver who was very often employed by accused Nos. 1, 2, 3,4 and 15 and the absconding accused and deceased Purushothaman Pillai for their various trips in connection with the conspiracy to various places. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 were employees of the New India Printers belonging to P.W. 35. They were also grafted into the conspiracy. The purchasing of the hand-press is proved by the evidence of P.W. 21, the taxi driver who carried them to Oachira and P.W. 27, the owner of the Asan Memorial Press. It is also proved by the evidence of P.W. 22, whose hand-press was finally purchased by them for Rs. 600. The press is M.O. 12 in the case. It was carried to Anchalumood in P.W. 2Ps taxi car. The press was then transported to Channapetta in K.L.K. 4599 taxi, of which P.W. 26 was the driver. It is also proved by the evidence of P.W. 22, whose hand-press was finally purchased by them for Rs. 600. The press is M.O. 12 in the case. It was carried to Anchalumood in P.W. 2Ps taxi car. The press was then transported to Channapetta in K.L.K. 4599 taxi, of which P.W. 26 was the driver. It was installed in the house of the 24th accused. M.O. 18 table on which the press was fixed up was supplied by accused No. 23. To explore the possibility of installing the press in a convenient place, they had to visit Thenmala, Aryankavu, Eroor and other interior places and this part of the prosecution case is proved by P.W. 23 the panchayat member of Eroor, P.W. 24 the proprietor of Travancore Match Works at Thenmalai and P.W. 25 the Sree Karyakkar of Aryankavu temple. All these are persons who were approached by the accused for finding out a convenient place and when they found that these witnesses were not helpful, they approached accused Nos. 23 and 24, residents of Channapetta and with their help the press was installed. 10. The printing was started without delay and the first printer employed was the 13th accused Purushothaman who was then attached to the Radhas Printers, Quilon. He was taken from Quilon in P.W. 26's car by accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and Sivanandan. The 13th accused was found to be not so proficient in colour printing and so the services of the 6tli accused had to be sought. To contact the 6th accused also, the accused had to travel in P.W. 26's car. The 6th accused was taken to Channapetta with the ink, cut papers and wedges and the printing was resumed in the house of the 24th accused. PAY. 35 Rajendran Nair of New India Printers has given evidence to the effect that the 6th, accused was proficient in colour printing. He was thus put in sole charge of the printing and sufficient number of notes were accordingly printed. After the purpose was achieved, the press was dismantled and carried back to Anchalumood. The principal participants in the crime up to this stage are accused Nos. 1 to 7, 15, 23 and 24. The learned Judge has discussed the evidence in respect of the complicity of each of those accused and come to the correct conclusion. After the purpose was achieved, the press was dismantled and carried back to Anchalumood. The principal participants in the crime up to this stage are accused Nos. 1 to 7, 15, 23 and 24. The learned Judge has discussed the evidence in respect of the complicity of each of those accused and come to the correct conclusion. For added assurance to the reliability of the evidence against these accused, he has invoked the aid of the two confessional statements also. The confessions, as already stated, were these made by accused Nos. 2 and 7. In the recording of these confessions by the respective Magistrates I do not think any of the relevant Rules and Circulars directions have been violated. The confessional statements have been retracted by them before court. If a confession is true and voluntary, it is normally accepted but when the confession is retracted, the court will have to look in for other evidence to corroborate the facts stated in the confession. When the confession is retracted, the relevant point to be considered by the court is whether the retraction was the result of an after-thought actuated by other ulterior motives. The law on this subject has been summarised in the following terms by the Supreme Court in Bharat v. State of U.P.(1970) 1 S.C.W.R. 683. "The law as to confessions is perhaps too widely stated. Confessions can be acted upon if the court is satisfied that they are voluntary and that they are true. The voluntary nature of the confession depends upon whether there was any threat, inducement or promise and its truth is judged in the context of the entire prosecution case. The confession must fit into the proved facts and not run counter to them. When the voluntary character of the confession and its truth are accepted it is safe to rely on it. Indeed a confession if it is voluntary and true and not made under any inducement or threat or promise, is the most potent piece of evidence against the maker, retracted confession, however stands on a slightly different footing. As the Privy Council once stated, in India it is the rule to find a confession and to find it retracted later. Indeed a confession if it is voluntary and true and not made under any inducement or threat or promise, is the most potent piece of evidence against the maker, retracted confession, however stands on a slightly different footing. As the Privy Council once stated, in India it is the rule to find a confession and to find it retracted later. A court may take into account the retracted confession, but it must look for the reasons for the making of the confession as well as for its retraction, and must weigh the two to determine whether the retraction affects the voluntary nature of the confession or not, if the court is satisfied that it was retracted because of an after-thought or advice, the retraction may not weigh with the court if the general facts proved in the case and the tenor of the confession as made and the circumstances of its making and withdrawal warrant its user. All the same, the courts do not act upon the retracted confession without finding assurance from some other sources as to the guilt of the accused. Therefore, it can be stated that a true confession made voluntarily may be acted upon with slight evidence to corroborate it, but a retracted confession requires the general assurance that the retraction was an after-thought and that the earlier statement was true. This was laid down by the Supreme Court in an earlier case reported in Subramania Gounden v. The State of Madras. Since the confession was retracted in the present case one has to look around to see whether there is any corroboration to connect the accused with the crime, although not containing the full evidence about the commission of the offence." 11. Both the confessions are sufficiently long, dealing at great length and, not omitting even minor details. In retracting the confessions the accused stated that they were given something written in a paper and asked to narrate those things in court later. The 2nd accused stated before court that he was taken to the Quilon East Police Station on 6th November 1968, kept there for 4 or 5 days and then asked something written in the paper and asked to by-heart it. The 2nd accused stated before court that he was taken to the Quilon East Police Station on 6th November 1968, kept there for 4 or 5 days and then asked something written in the paper and asked to by-heart it. The case of the 7th accused, on the other hand, was that he was taken to the East Police Station on 23rd October 1968 and kept there till 30th January 1969 (for about 3 months in the Police club) and was asked to tell the court at Punalur that he was arrested at Punalur that day. The Punalur Sub Magistrate did not record the confession. He was, therefore, sent to Kottarakkara court and by threats and inducements he was made to confess. On going through the two confessional statements, I am not prepared to say that the details spoken to in the two statements were prepared by the Police and given over to them before hand as stated by them. Both the statements present the features of voluntary statements, made at a stretch and not suggested to them by any outside agency. The Magistrates who recorded the statements were satisfied that they were voluntary. All the factors stated therein have been substantially corroborated by other evidence in the case. In the circumstances, the learned Judge is justified in having accepted the confessional statements to give added assurance to the facts already proved in the case. 12. Now coming to the next stage, viz., trafficking in the forged notes, the part played by accused Nos. 8 to 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22 and 25 would mainly arise for consideration. Selling or buying or receiving or otherwise trafficking is an offence under section 489B, while mere possession of such counterfeit currency with such knowledge and with the intention to use the same as genuine will come under section 489C. Even according to the learned Judge the main evidence regarding these accused is the various recoveries effected on the basis of information supplied by these accused to the Police in the course of the investigation. Accused No. 8, Sukumaran, who was at the time the manager of an arrack shop at Oachira was the central force in this regard. The case of the prosecution is that the 5th accused together with accused Nos. 4 and 9 were making all efforts, to canvass customers for uttering the currency. Accused No. 8, Sukumaran, who was at the time the manager of an arrack shop at Oachira was the central force in this regard. The case of the prosecution is that the 5th accused together with accused Nos. 4 and 9 were making all efforts, to canvass customers for uttering the currency. Counterfeit notes were obtained by the 8th accused and distributed to various other customers. Thus 200 notes were delivered by him to the 18th accused. The 9th accused was engaged in canvassing customers. He told P.W. 79 that notes were available for sale; but P.W. 79 had not the wherewithal to make the purchase. He directed P.W. 80 to the 9th accused and after bargaining with him P.W. 80 contacted the 22nd accused, Kuttan Pillai with the suggestion that a person at Oachira is in possession of two-rupee counterfeit notes. The 22nd accused was interested in the affair and with P.W. 80 he went to Chavara from where P.W. 79 was also picked up and they went to the 9th accused. Then they went to the 8th accused's arrack shop at Oachira. The 9th accused asked for an advance of Rs. 101, which the 22nd accused paid him. Then the 9th accused told that counterfeit notes to the value of Rs. 5,000 was available and they could raise the funds for taking "delivery of it. Accordingly accused No. 22 and P.W. 80 contacted P.W. 72, achitty foreman and with the necessary funds got from him they went to the 8th accused's arrack shop. The 8th accused told them that he was expecting a car carrying the currency notes and in the next moment the car came with accused Nos. 4, 8 and 9 in it. In the same car accused No. 22, P.Ws. 72, 79 and 80 went to Quilon and got down at Chinnakkada. P.Ws. 79 and 80 were asked to keep at a distance. Accused Nos. 9 and 22 and P.W. 72 were engaged in secret talks, in the course of which accused No. 22 told the 9th accused that he had only Rs. 300 with him. The 9th accused got angry and scolded the 22nd accused and others; but the 22nd accused promised to make the rest of the payment the next day. Immediately the 9th accused took a bundle from his loins and showed it to the 22nd accused. 300 with him. The 9th accused got angry and scolded the 22nd accused and others; but the 22nd accused promised to make the rest of the payment the next day. Immediately the 9th accused took a bundle from his loins and showed it to the 22nd accused. Three bundles of notes were given to the 22nd accused. Leaving P.Ws. 79 and 80 there, the 22nd accused and P.W. 72 left the place. The taxi car in which they travelled for the purpose was driven by P.W. 68 and he has given valuable evidence in respect of the transaction. The evidence of P.Ws. 72, 79 and 80 would show that accused 4, 8 and 9 were involved in trafficking of the notes as between them and the 22nd accused in receiving the notes; but the evidence of all these witnesses is attacked on the ground that they are accomplices. "The law with regard to appreciation of approver's evidence is based on the effect of sections 133 and 114 illustration (b) of the Evidence Act, viz., that an accomplice is competent to depose but as a rule of caution it will be unsafe to convict upon his testimony alone. The warning of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence is therefore given when the evidence is that of an accomplice. The primary meaning of accomplice is any party to the crime charged and someone who aids and abets the commission of crime. The nature of corroboration is that it is confirmatory evidence and it may consist of the evidence of second witness or of circumstances like the conduct of the person against whom it is required. Corroboration must connect or tend to connect the accused with the crime." (vide Yadav v. State A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1330). 13. Tested in the light of the above principles, I must say that the evidence of P.Ws. 79 and 80, is unacceptable, they being persons who were out to aid or abet in committing the crime of trafficking in counterfeit currency. They entered into the scheme, knowing full well the risk involved and with the full knowledge that they were indulging themselves in a criminal act. P.W. 79 has deposed to the transaction that the 9th accused had with the 22nd accused. He has stated that Rs. 101 was paid by the 22nd accused to the 9th accused as advance. They entered into the scheme, knowing full well the risk involved and with the full knowledge that they were indulging themselves in a criminal act. P.W. 79 has deposed to the transaction that the 9th accused had with the 22nd accused. He has stated that Rs. 101 was paid by the 22nd accused to the 9th accused as advance. He was also present at the time when the 9th accused told the 22nd accused that 5,000 two-rupee counterfeit currency notes were available for Rs. 5,000. Knowing about this the witness was following them expecting some profit for him also. P.W. 80 is P.W. 79's wife's uncle. This witness would swear that: X X X 14. So both these persons were actively in the transaction fully alive to the consequences thereof. It is, therefore, not advisable to accept their evidence without corroboration. But corroboration is not wanting. P.W. 72 is the foreman of a chitty in which the 22nd accused was a subscriber. It was from him that the money required for purchase of the counterfeit currency was borrowed by the 22nd accused. He did not know the purpose for which the money was borrowed by the 22nd accused. Corroboration is also furnished by the recovery of the notes from the grocery shop of the 22nd accused. 198 notes were recovered from the shop, from an empty tin placed in a rack along with other tins. The recovery is evidenced by Ext. P-65 recovery mahazar. This recovery is challenged on the ground that it is not a recovery falling under section 27 of the Evidence Act and as such it is not admissible in evidence. The argument is that the information leading to the recovery was furnished by the 9th accused; but the recovery as a matter of fact was made from the shop of the 22nd accused. That recovery, therefore, cannot be tagged on to any information supplied by the 9th accused. The fact discovered under section 27 of the Evidence Act embraces the place and not the object recovered or produced. In the present case, according to the learned counsel, the fact discovered does not embrace any place and as such there is no recovery falling under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The fact discovered under section 27 of the Evidence Act embraces the place and not the object recovered or produced. In the present case, according to the learned counsel, the fact discovered does not embrace any place and as such there is no recovery falling under section 27 of the Evidence Act. "The discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. In principle there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused which in effect is that will show you the person to whom I have given the articles.' 'The only difference between the two statements is that a named person is substituted for the place where the article is kept. In neither case are the articles, the fact discovered." (Jaffer Hussain v. The State of Maharashtra 1970 S.C. 1934). 15. The statement supplied by the 9th accused led the police to the 22nd accused and to that extent the confession made by the 9th accused is acceptable; because as stated in the above ruling of the Supreme Court the person can be equated with the place. From that person no recovery was made; but he on his part made another confession which actually led to the discovery of the articles. This confession of the accused is challenged on the ground that at the time the statement was made by him he was not in police custody. "Police custody for the purpose of section 26 does not commence only when the accused is formally arrested but would commence from the moment when his movements are restricted and he is kept in some sort of direct or indirect police surveillance. As soon as an accused or suspected person comes into the hands of a police officer, he is, in the absence of any clear and unmistakable evidence to the contrary, no longer at liberty and is therefore in 'custody' within the meaning of sections 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act. Even indirect control over the movements of suspects by the police would amount to 'police custody' within the meaning of section 26." (vide Parambansa Jadab v. State” A.I.R. 1964 Orissa 144). 16. The Bombay High Court in Bakshia Mukinda Neobudha v. State A.I.R. 1960 Bom. Even indirect control over the movements of suspects by the police would amount to 'police custody' within the meaning of section 26." (vide Parambansa Jadab v. State” A.I.R. 1964 Orissa 144). 16. The Bombay High Court in Bakshia Mukinda Neobudha v. State A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 263 has also held on the same lines. In that case a dacoity took place on 11th September 1958 al, 7:30 p.m. The complaint was lodged on the same day at about 10 p.m. naming two accused. On 12th September 1958, the police officer closely questioned the accused and as a result of that interrogation the accused not only made a statement but took the panchas and the police officer to certain field and produced some articles from below the heap of Kadba in that field which were out of those looted. The accused was actually arrested on the 16th. It was contended that section 27 did not apply as the accused could not be said to be in police custody on the 12th. The court held that:” "the fact that the accused was interrogated on the 12th and made a statement and led the panchas and police officer to a field and thereafter produced certain articles, which are the subject-matter of dacoity, would be sufficient to establish that there was submission on his part to police custody. Therefore, the evidence as to the statement made by the accused on the 12th September 1958 as well as the evidence as to the discovery of the articles produced by him would be admissible under section 27." In an earlier case in State v. Mohammed Hussain A.I.R. 1959 Bom. 534, the Bombay High Court held that:” "Where a person goes to a police officer and makes a statement which shows that an offence has been committed, he accuses himself and though he is formally not arrested, since he is not free to move wherever he likes after the disclosure of the information to the police he must be deemed to be in custody of the police." 17. It, therefore, follows that for the statement to fall under section 27 the informant need not at the time be under police custody in the strict sense of the term. It is enough if his movements are watched by the police: in other words he is under police surveillance. It, therefore, follows that for the statement to fall under section 27 the informant need not at the time be under police custody in the strict sense of the term. It is enough if his movements are watched by the police: in other words he is under police surveillance. In the case on hand, the police were led to the 22nd accused by a statement given by the 9th accused and the moment the police came by the 22nd accused, he was under their control and surveillance and the subsequent statement made by him which actually led to the recovery is thus a statement falling under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The conviction of the 22nd accused, therefore, is correct. 18. The case of the 25th accused requires some consideration. The 25th accused is a Muslim widow Hajera Ummal, by name, who is stated to have sold her gold Odayanam for Rs. 3,400 to P.W. 91 for raising funds for the purchase of counterfeit notes. It is alleged that P.W. 55 is a goldsmith who was usually making ornaments for her, and P.W. 57, a boy who was working as her servant at the time. The case is that with the money got by the sale of the Odayanams, she went all the way to Channapetta in the company of P.Ws. 55 and 57 and purchased 4,000 two-rupee counterfeit notes which were bundled in 40 bundles of 100 notes each. They first went to the house of the 23rd accused and in the dead of night the notes were brought there at the instance of the 23rd accused and sold to her. After bringing the notes to her house at Edava, she, is stated to have sent Rs. 1,000 (500 two-rupee notes) to P.W. 92 a chitty foreman towards arrears of chitty subscriptions. The notes were taken to him by P.W. 57 in the company of P.W. 55. The chitty foreman on scrutiny found that the notes were counterfeit. He immediately returned them saying that they are not acceptable. It is on this evidence that accused No. 25 has been convicted. I do not think that in the absence of recovery of any such notes from her house, or from any other place on information supplied by her, her conviction can be sustained. The only overt act proved against her was the sale of the Odayanams to P.W. 91. It is on this evidence that accused No. 25 has been convicted. I do not think that in the absence of recovery of any such notes from her house, or from any other place on information supplied by her, her conviction can be sustained. The only overt act proved against her was the sale of the Odayanams to P.W. 91. That is no criminal act and she cannot be convicted on that account. Her alleged trip to Ghannapetta with the money is sought to be proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 55 and 57, both of whom in the circumstances can be treated only as accomplices. P.W. 57 has denied having evergone to Ghannapetta along with the 25th accused and P.W. 55. P.W. 55 would, however, say that he had gone to Ghannapetta with the 25th accused; but his evidence, as already stated, cannot be accepted. Even on his own showing he went there for the purpose of purchasing counterfeit currency notes. To deliver the notes to the chitty foreman also this witness went with P.W. 57. Regarding the alleged payment to the chitty foreman he would swear:” (the veranda of P.W. 92's house,). He was thus an active participant in the work of trafficking in false currency. The alleged delivery of the notes to the chitty foreman cannot be attributed to the 25th accused even if there was any such attempts on the part of P.Ws. 55 and 57. There is no evidence to connect herewith uttering of the notes. The possibility of P.Ws. 55 and 57 playing such a trick on the chitty foreman also cannot be ruled out. It is possible that genuine notes were sent by the 25th accused and suppressing those genuine notes counterfeit notes were offered to the chitty foreman. Any way, evidence is thus lacking to connect the ascused with the alleged uttering of the notes through P.Ws. 55 and 57. I should, therefore, think that the conviction of the 25th accused is bad and has to be vacated. 19. The case against the 14th accused may now be considered. He has been charged under section 489-B and G of the I.P.C. On the first charge, viz., under section 489-B, the evidence relied on is that furnished by P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. P.W. 2 is one Hajira Beevi. 19. The case against the 14th accused may now be considered. He has been charged under section 489-B and G of the I.P.C. On the first charge, viz., under section 489-B, the evidence relied on is that furnished by P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. P.W. 2 is one Hajira Beevi. The case is that the 14th accused purchased five edangazhies of rice from her on the night of 18th October 1968 for Rs. 10 and towards the price he gave her five two-rupee counterfeit currency notes. She came to know only in the morning that the notes were counterfeit. It was a dark night and there was drizzling also. So she was not able to visualise the person who purchased the rice. But according to her, P.W. 4 was present at the time when the rice was sold. P.W. 3 is one Devaki, whose husband is running a barber shop in the adjoining room. She swears that the transaction was seen by her also. The rice was sold from the veranda of the shop as P.W. 2 has no shop for herself. She is a person moving about with headload of rice selling to customers. On the next morning P.W. 2 went over to P.W. 4 to get information from him about the person who had purchased rice on the previous night and it is alleged that the name of the 14th accused was supplied by him; but the evidence of P.W. 4 is not only not helpful but is confusing as well. What he told P.W. 2 when she called on him the next morning was that he can identify the person only by sight. In cross-examination he stated that he did tell her that Kamaruddin was the person who had purchased rice. He would also say that it was not Kamaruddin but Bose the 15th accused who had purchased rice. In another breath he would say that the 15th accused was standing at a distance and it was the 14th accused who purchased the rice. He would swear: X X X To the Sub Inspector also he did not disclose their names : X X X He finally stated : X X X On this evidence it is difficult to fix upon the 14th accused as the person who' had purchased the rice. He would swear: X X X To the Sub Inspector also he did not disclose their names : X X X He finally stated : X X X On this evidence it is difficult to fix upon the 14th accused as the person who' had purchased the rice. According to P.W. 2 a certain person came on a bicycle and purchased rice from her on payment of the five two-rupee currency notes; but she is unable to identify the person. 20. On the second charge, viz., of being in possession of the counterfeit notes, the prosecution would rely on Ext. P56 the recovery mahazar. But it is difficult to act upon the recovery mahazar. Of the two attestors, only one was examined; but he has not supported the mahazar. He is P.W. 71, Ponnan Chettiar. He would admit his signature on the mahazar; but according to him he was not present at the time of the recovery. He was working at the time in a nearby place and on seeing the police going to Kamaruddin's house he also went. He stood outside only ; but the recovery was made as seen from the mahazar from a card-board box kept inside an almirah. A person standing in the compound cannot see things taking place inside the house. In the circumstances, from the mere fact that the witness had signed the mahazar it does not follow that the recovery was seen by him. The prosecution ought to have examined the other attestor to the mahazar. In the light of the statement by the witness that he was standing only in the compound, his evidence cannot be made use of for proving the recovery. The 14th accused also, in the circumstances, will have to be acquitted. 21. The 10th accused has played a prominent role in uttering the counterfeit currency notes. He held some correspondence with the 9th accused (Ext. A46 is one of the letters proved to have been written by him to the 9th accused) and through him he contacted accused Nos. 4 and 8 and managed to collect some counterfeit notes from them. Out of the notes so collected he sold 200 notes to the 11th accused and another 200 to the 12th accused. From the information collected from the 10th accused police were able to arrest the 12th accused and recover from him 152 notes under Ext. 4 and 8 and managed to collect some counterfeit notes from them. Out of the notes so collected he sold 200 notes to the 11th accused and another 200 to the 12th accused. From the information collected from the 10th accused police were able to arrest the 12th accused and recover from him 152 notes under Ext. P-68 mahazar attested by P.W. 75. The notes were kept in an almirah in his house. P.W. 75, the attestor allowed an inclination to help the accused by swearing against the attestation. He stated that he was summoned to the police station at Varkala, which is 6 miles from the 12th accused's house and there he was asked to sign the mahazar. This story cannot be believed. Why should he be summoned like that to Varkala as if nobody was available at Kallambalam, the place of recovery, to attest the mahazar? The evidence shows that this witness is a merchant at Manampoor, which is a place not far off from the 12th accused's house and it is only probable that he was summoned from the shop to attest the mahazar. It is patent that he is prevaricating to help the 12th accused, who is a chitty foreman with whom the witness had his people have dealings. 22. The 11th accused was pointed out by the 10th accused to the police at Kallambalam as the person to whom 200 notes were entrusted by him. On questioning the 11th accused, notes were produced by him. They were kept in his house in a locked box covered with a cloth piece. Ext. P-63 is the recovery mahazar attested by P.W. 76. Like other attestors, this man also has realised from the factum of his attestation although his signature in the mahazar has been admitted by him. He is a man of the place residing within half a furlong from the 11th accused's house. He would depose that while he was proceeding to Kallambalam from Varkala on a bicycle he saw a crowd collected at the road in front of the 11th accused's house and seeing that he got down from his bicycle. At once the police asked him to sign and he obeyed. This is too simple a story to be believed. He would depose that while he was proceeding to Kallambalam from Varkala on a bicycle he saw a crowd collected at the road in front of the 11th accused's house and seeing that he got down from his bicycle. At once the police asked him to sign and he obeyed. This is too simple a story to be believed. The police could easily have obtained the services of any one from among the crowd to attest the mahazar rather than falling upon a way-farer like him for the purpose. I do not think that the recovery has in any way been shaken by the evidence of this witness. 23. These two recoveries were criticised on the same point on which Ext. P-65 recovery (recovery from the 22nd accused's shop) was criticised, viz., that the recoveries were made not on information supplied by the accused to whom the recoveries have been attributed. As observed in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1934 (cited supra) the statement of the accused led to the person instead of the place from where the articles were recovered. The recoveries actually were made on the information collected from the person who was pointed out by the accused as the person to whom the notes were entrusted by him. The fact discovered in the present case are accuseds 11 and 12 on the information supplied by the 10th accused; but the recoveries were actually made on the further information furnished by accused 11 and 12. The 10th accused, therefore cannot be convicted on the recoveries. But there are other materials brought out in the evidence which would inextricably connect with uttering of the counterfeit currency. It has come in the evidence that a bundle of the fake notes was entrusted by him to P.W. 77, a textile shop owner in front of the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. The textile shop is in the ground-floor and in the upstairs P.W. 73 was running a lodge. The 10th accused is proved to have stayed in one of the room in the lodge between 28th October 1968 and 30th October 1968. The proof for this is furnished by P.W. 73 and his room-boy P.W. 74 supported by the register M.O. 45. Ext. P-61 entry in M.O. 45 would connect this accused with his pay in the lodge. During his stay he had gained acquaintance with P.W. 77. The proof for this is furnished by P.W. 73 and his room-boy P.W. 74 supported by the register M.O. 45. Ext. P-61 entry in M.O. 45 would connect this accused with his pay in the lodge. During his stay he had gained acquaintance with P.W. 77. He had told P.W. 77 that his mission in going over to Trivandrum was for purchasing some cows from Neyyattinkara and as he had developed toothache in the meanwhile he could not proceed to Neyyattinkara. On the 29th he entrusted a bundle to P.W. 77 saying that it was unsafe to keep it in his room and that he wanted to go out on a personal matter and would return the next day and get it back; but he did not turn up again. After some days, P.W. 77 opened the bundle and found that the bundle contained two-rupee counterfeit notes. By that time the news had leaked out that some persons had been arrested in connection with the two-rupee counterfeit notes. P.W. 77 was, therefore, in a panic and consulted his lawyer. The lawyer advised him to throw the notes into the flames and he did accordingly. The evidence of this witness was challenged as artificial, in that the accused could not have entrusted such a bundle to him for safe custody as various other methods were open to him to secret the notes or destroy them. But evidence of this witness has to be appreciated in the light of the facts that a sensation had already been created by the arrest of some of the accused and in the circumstances the 10th accused might have thought of disappearing from the place all on a sudden and in the hurry of the moment might have thought of disposing of the bundle in this manner. Exts. D-4 to D-6 are newspaper reports dated 24th and 26th of October 1968 announcing the arrest of some of the accused. It is possible that the 10th accused had got alarmed over the news and made such a dramatic disappearance from the place. No prudent man would, of course, have done like that; but strange are the ways of the criminals. In the face of an emergency criminals sometimes behave like fools and the way in which the 10th accused conducted himself could be taken as one such instance. No prudent man would, of course, have done like that; but strange are the ways of the criminals. In the face of an emergency criminals sometimes behave like fools and the way in which the 10th accused conducted himself could be taken as one such instance. I see no reason to disbelieve P.W. 77, who is an apparently respectable witness. He had absolutely no difficulty in identifying the 10th accused as the person who had entrusted the bundle to him. In addition to these circumstances we have also the confessional statements given by accused Nos. 11 and 12 which led to the recovery and those statements can be taken as another link connecting these accused with the crime. No doubt, they are confessions of accused; but as the statements are followed up by recovery and as there are other items of evidence also to corroborate the statements, they can be relied on for finding the 10th accused guilty. 24. I think I have covered all the points placed before me by the learned counsel appearing for the various accused. The appeals filed by accuseds Nos. 6, 19, 23 and 24 were not pressed at the time of argument. In the appeals filed by accused Nos. 8, 9, 12, 17 and 21, no fresh point was urged. All the points raised by them are points already covered in the other appeals and, therefore, I do not see the need for a further discussion on the same materials. The points arising against the various accused are common and the appeals were, therefore, heard together. The result of my above discussion of the evidence and circumstances is that in addition to the accused already acquitted, accused Nos. 14 and 25 are also entitled to an acquittal. The conviction and sentence passed against them are, therefore, set aside and they are acquitted. Their appeals Criminal Appeal Nos. 157 and 154 of 1970 are allowed. The conviction and sentence passed on the other appellants-accused are confirmed and the appeals filed by them are dismissed.