Nesargi, J.-Twelve persons were tried by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge. Bangalore in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1968 on various charges including offences under sections 120-B, 489-C and 489-D of the Indian Penal Code. A-5 to A-12 were acquitted of all the charges. A-1 to A-4 have been convicted for offences under sections 120-B and 489-D of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. A-2 and A-4 have been further convicted for an offence under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences passed against A-2 and A-4 are directed to run concurrently. 2. A-1 to A-4 have filed Criminal Appeals Nos. 111, 112, 122 and 123 of 1969 respectively challenging the legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence passed against them. Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1909 has been filed by the State challenging the acquittal of A-5 to A-12. In the course of this judgment, the accused persons will be referred to as A-1 to A-12 in the very order they were arraigned in the Sessions Case. 3. After due investigation, P.W.108 Subramanya Iyer, C.I.D., Police Inspector, found that there was evidence not only against these twelve accused persons, but also against Armugam Javaraiah and Phelomena Raj in regard to the said offences. Armugam was absconding. He was shown as absconding in the charge-sheet. It is said that he is still absconding. Committal proceedings against Phelomena Raj are still pending. They could not be completed because of various reasons which, in our opinion, it is not necessary to go into. Javaraiah who is admittedly the father of A-9 has been discharged in the committing Court. 4. The prosecution rase is that P.W.108 was investigating in Crime No. 171 of 1966 of Chickpet Police Station, Bangalore. That was a crime involving offences including the offences of criminal conspiracy and using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency notes. During that investigation, he got information that counterfeit currency notes and blocks pertaining to currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 5 and Rs. 2 were available with A-1. P.W.108 asked the informant to secure further information and communicate the same to him. 5. During that investigation, he got information that counterfeit currency notes and blocks pertaining to currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 5 and Rs. 2 were available with A-1. P.W.108 asked the informant to secure further information and communicate the same to him. 5. On 27th October, 1966, P.W.108 instructed his subordinate head constable P.W.65 to find out a reliable person who could be asked to put himself forward to A-1 as a purchaser of counterfeit currency notes and blocks and other materials necessary for counterfeiting currency notes. P.W.No. 65 approached his longstanding friend P.W.105 and P.W.105 agreed. The very same day P.W.105 was taken by P.W.65 near the Electrical shop of A-1. P.W.105 went alone into that shop and approached A-1. There was some talk and thereafter A-1 asked for a deposit of Rs. 10 from P.W.105 and gave him two counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination. P.W.105 brought them, showed them to P.W.108 and then returned them to A-1 and got back his deposit of Rs. 10. 6. On 1st November, 1966, information that A-2 was likely to arrive in Bangalore and proceed to Mysore reached P.W.108. P.W.108 directed his subordinate officials to get ready with two cars, one for the use of P.W.105 and another for the use of himself and his staff. Two cars bearing Registration No. MYV. 6785 driven by P.W.93 and WGM. 1005 driven by one Shankarappa C.W. 119 (not examined) were got ready. As arranged between A-1 and P.W.105, P.W.105 received a phone call from A-1 at about 9-00 p.m. or 9-30 p.m. informing that A-3 had arrived and his presence with money Was necessary in the shop of A-1. P.W.105 thought it better not to go alone but to take his relative C.W. 2 Basha with him. They went to the shop of A-1 in the car driven by P.W.93. They met A-1 and A-2. A-1 initiated the transaction and ultimately it was settled between A-1 and A-2 and P.W.105 that P.W.105 should pay Rs. 20,000 initially for purchase of the materials for counterfeiting currency notes of Rs. 2 and Rs. 5 denomination and after being satisfied with the material, should pay another sum of Rs. 5,000. P.W.105 agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 20,000 on receiving the materials by him. 20,000 initially for purchase of the materials for counterfeiting currency notes of Rs. 2 and Rs. 5 denomination and after being satisfied with the material, should pay another sum of Rs. 5,000. P.W.105 agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 20,000 on receiving the materials by him. Then they told him that the materials were at Mysore and that P.W.105 should proceed to Mysore along with A-1 and A-2. A-1, A-2, P.W.105 and C.W. 2 Basha left Bangalore at 10-30 p.m. in the car driven by P.W.93. That car was discretely followed by P.Ws. 108, 65 and other police officials in the car driven by C.W. 119. It is the prosecution case that ultimately the care driven by P.W.93 was taken to Modern Hindu Hotel at Mysore. In the morning of 2nd November, 1966 A-1, A-2 and P.W.105 secured a room and similarly P.W.108 also secured a room in the said hotel in the name of Shankarappa, C.W. 119. A-1 and A-2 went out in the car driven by P.W.93, and after various attempts, returned and told P.W.105 that they could not contact the persons who had the materials and that P.W.105 need not worry about the expense as they were definite to arrange to secure the materials. They returned to Bangalore reaching at about 1-00 a.m. on 3rd November, 1966. They were of course followed by P.W.108 and his officials. 7. On 2nd December, 1966, A-1 rang up P.W.105 informing that the presence of P.W.105 was necessary to the shop of A-1. P.W.105 and C.W. 2 Basha went there after informing P.W.65, and found A-1 and A-2 present. A-1 secured Rs. 100 from P.W.105 and then making P.W.105 wait in his shop, went out with A-2 and returned at about 6-00 a.m. on 3rd December, 1966. He told that he could not secure the persons who had the materials. At that A-2 assured P.W.105 not to worry at all as A-2 had any number of counterfeit currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 2, Rs. 5, and Rs. 10 and he would give them to P.W.105 meaning thereby that even if they failed to contact the persons having the materials they would in this way compensate P.W.105. 8. At that A-2 assured P.W.105 not to worry at all as A-2 had any number of counterfeit currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 2, Rs. 5, and Rs. 10 and he would give them to P.W.105 meaning thereby that even if they failed to contact the persons having the materials they would in this way compensate P.W.105. 8. At about 10-00 p.m. on Sunday the nth December, 1966, A-1 rang up P.W.105 and told him that all the materials were ready and that P.W.105 should go to his shop with the amount. P.W.105 tried to contact P.Ws. 108 and 65, but was not able to do so. He and C.W. 2 Basha went on their own to the shop of A-1. A-1 and A-2 were there. A-1 told them that all the materials had been received and two of his people from Mysore had brought the materials to the shop that P.W.105 should get the money. As P.W.105 had not been able to contact either P.W.65 or P.W.108, he dodged by telling A-1 that the day being Sunday, he could not arrange for payment and that he would arrange on the next day i.e., on 12th December, 1966, Monday. He reported to P.W.108 at about 10-00 a.m. on 12th December, 1966. Then a trap was arranged by P.W.108. 9. At about 1.00 P.M. on the very day, P.W.105 received a phone call from A-1 intimating that A-1 and his people were waiting in vain since morning for P.W.105. C.W. 2 Basha and P.W.105 went in a bus, got down at B.R.V. Talkies (the shop of A-1 is said to been Infantry Road) and proceeded to the shop of A-1. P.Ws. 108 and 65 and other persons had arranged themselves at various spots near about the shop of A-1. P.W.105 and C.W. 2 Basha found A-1 to A-4 present in the shop of A-1. The shop had an inside room. On a query put by A-1 to P.W.105 whether P.W.105 had brought the amount, P.W.105 asked A-1 to show the materials. A-1 took P.W.105 into the inner room. A-2 to A-4 also entered that room. A-4 was holding a bag which is marked M.O. 24. On being asked by P W. 105 to demonstrate he material, A-1 took out six blocks which are marked M.Os. 1 to 6. At that time there were no wooden bases fixed to them. A-1 took P.W.105 into the inner room. A-2 to A-4 also entered that room. A-4 was holding a bag which is marked M.O. 24. On being asked by P W. 105 to demonstrate he material, A-1 took out six blocks which are marked M.Os. 1 to 6. At that time there were no wooden bases fixed to them. A-1 then put on a pair of gloves marked M.O. 21. There was an ordinary ink-pad which is used for making impressions by means of a rubber stamp. It is M.O. 23. A-1 took a piece of paper and commenced inking M.Os. 1 to 6 one by one by means of the ink-pad M.O. 23 and making impressions on a paper. That paper is M.O. 22. When the last impression was being made by A-1, P.W.108, P.W.65 and panchas entered the room and caught A-1 in the process of imprinting on M.O. 22 by means of a block out of M.Os. 1 to 6. Of course P.W.108 arrested A-1 to A-4 and in the presence of panchas arranged to take search of the persons of A-1 to A-4 and the shop of A-1. In the shirt pocket of A-2, they found (i) M.O. 7 a piece of piper bearing two imprints of currency note of Rs. 2 denomination, (ii) M.O. 10 which are two counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination. They were numbered W/47 530957, and (iii) Exhibit P-84 a notice dated 18th November, 1966. In the shirt pocket of A-3, they found M.O. 17 a slip issued in Bombay Anand Bhavan Hotel, Old Poor House Lane. In the shirt pocket of A-4, they found (i) Exhibit P-36 a note book which contained the address of A-7, and (ii) a slip containing items of expenditure incurred, Exhibit P-37. In the bag M.O. 24 that was in the hands of A-4, they found some documents marked Exhibit P-25 series. The search of the shop of A-1 disclosed (i) Exhibit P-6 a receipt dated 8th December, 1966, issued by the Telegraph Office for having sent a telegram, (ii) Exhibit P-68 a notice dated 7th January, 1966 issued by Sri Sait (P.W.96) to A-1 and (iii) post cards dated nth November, 1966, 18th November, 1966 and 1st December, 1966, marked respectively as Exhibits P-35, P-34 and P-33 purporting to have been written by A-4 to A-1. All these articles were found in the left hand drawer of the table of A-1. That table was in the said room where A-1 to A-4 and P.W.105 were present when A-1 was demonstrating the impressions made by means of M.Os. 1 to 6. A mahazar Exhibit P-69 was recorded and the articles were subjected to a property form marked Exhibit P-115. 10. Thereafter, search of the house of A-1 was taken up and 8 glass pieces M.O. 27, 3 pens M.O. 28, divider M.O. 29, pencil M.O. 3O, scale M.O. 31, a bundle of white paper containing papers cut to the size of a currency note of Rs. 5 denomination M.O. 26, and 210 pieces of black paper cut to the size of a currency note of Rs. 100 denomination M.O. 32 were seized under search list Exhibit P-70. They were subjected to property form marked Exhibit P-116. 11. A-3 was interrogated by P.W.108 and it is the case of the prosecution that he voluntarily informed as per the contents of Exhibit P-117. 12. A-4 was also interrogated and he is alleged to have given information as is contained in Exhibit P-118. 13. Thereafter, P.W.108 left Bangalore at about 9-00 p.m. to Mysore taking with him A-1 to A-4. They reached Mysore at about 1-30 a.m., on 13th December, 1966. 14. At Mysore, A-3 took P.W.108 to the house of Javaraiah who was questioned. Javaraiah took P.W.108 to the carpentry shed of P.W.27 Ramachandar. P.W.27 opened the lock of the shed and therefrom Javaraiah produced 2 gunny bags M.O. 19 which contained parts of a printing press marked M.O. 14. They were seized under mahazar Exhibit P-28. A-2 and A-3 volunteered to assemble the said parts of M.O. 14. P.W.34 Vishwanath provided wooden bases to M.Os. 1 to 6 that had been carried by P.W.108 himself and also provided some tools like spaners etc. It is the case of the prosecution that A-2 and A-3 assembled M.O. 14 and operated it. P.W.47 Santhosh Kumar provided ink etc. A-2 and A-3 arranged M.Os. 1 to 6 into a frame and operated M.O. 14 and took impressions on papers. Those papers are marked Exhibit P-54 series. It may be stated that these series contain impressions of M.Os. 1 to 6 got printed by a press. A mahazar Exhibit P-55 narrating the operation was recorded. 15. A-2 and A-3 arranged M.Os. 1 to 6 into a frame and operated M.O. 14 and took impressions on papers. Those papers are marked Exhibit P-54 series. It may be stated that these series contain impressions of M.Os. 1 to 6 got printed by a press. A mahazar Exhibit P-55 narrating the operation was recorded. 15. Then the house of A-4 was searched. 5 counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 2 marked M.O. 19, 3 tins of printing ink marked M.O. 17 and a roll of white paper containing 145 sheets marked M.O. 18 were found. The proceedings were recorded in the mahazar Exhibit P-48. The properties were subjected to property form marked Exhibit P-88. The party then left for Bangalore. 16. On 16th December, 1966, the party reached Madurai. There A-3 showed the house of A-5, A-7 and Phelomena Raj. They were not present. 17. On 18th December, 1966, A-5 was found coming from the direction of the bus-stand and he was arrested. He had a Tamil novel M.O. 33 with him. Amongst the pages of that book were found one counterfeit currency note of Rs. 2 denomination marked M.O. 34, and one counterfeit currency note of Rs. 5 denomination marked M.O. 8. They were seized under a mahazar Exhibit P-85 and subjected to property form Exhibit P-120. The very same day, head constable Mallaiah, who had gone in search of A-6 with the assistance of the informant, produced A-6 who was arrested by P.W.108. When the party was watching near the bus stand opposite to Meenakshi Lodge at Madurai, the informant pointed out A-7 at a distance. He was stopped and arrested. He was carrying a plastic bag M.O. 35. That contained 60 metallic numerical types fixed to wooden bases. They are M.O. 11 series. These articles were seized under a mahazar Exhibit P-86 and later on subjected to property form Exhibit P-121. A-8 was arrested on the very same day near Lakshmi Talkies at Ramnad Road, Madurai. 18. A-5 volunteered information as per Exhibit P-122 that he would point out the lodge at Mysore where they had stayed and the fuel depot in Mysore and the car in which they had gone to Mysore. A-8 was arrested on the very same day near Lakshmi Talkies at Ramnad Road, Madurai. 18. A-5 volunteered information as per Exhibit P-122 that he would point out the lodge at Mysore where they had stayed and the fuel depot in Mysore and the car in which they had gone to Mysore. A-7 volunteered information as per Exhibit P-123 that he would show the person who prepared the metallic numerical types M.O. 11 and in accordance with that information led P.W.108 to the house of P.W.3 Mohan who was examined by P.W.108. 19. On 19th December, 1966, A-7 showed the shop where Phelomena Raj used to work. A-5 showed the tea shop of A-11. A-11 was absent. 20. On 20th December, 1966, A-3 showed Sundar Lodge which was being managed by P.W.104. 21. On 21st December, 1966, A-3 showed P.Ws. 30 and 31. P.W.19 was sent for, but was not available. Of course P.Ws. 30 and 31 were examined. These are the persons from whom M.O. 14 the press had been purchased, 22. On 22nd December, 1966, A-3 showed P.W.61 who was examined. He is Azeen Khan who is said to have transported the press M.O. 14 from Nagarthapet, Bangalore, where the printing press of P.W.31 is situated, in a taxi to Mysore. 23. On 23rd December, 1966, A-3 led P.W.108 to Janata Lodge at Mysore where P.W.33 produced M.Os. 12, 15 and 16 which are leather suit case, bed-sheet and a key-ring containing two keys. A-5 showed room No. 100 in Brindavan Lodge and then the fuel depot of P.W.40 who was examined. Exhibit P-41 was taken from Brindavan Lodge. A-3 showed P.W.46 who was examined. P.W.46 is alleged to have driven A-3, A-5, A-9 and A-12 in his tax to Salem, Madurai and so on. 24. On 25th December, 1966, A-9 was arrested by a head constable. He gave information as per the contents of Exhibit P-124. A-4 showed Janardan Lunch House at Hassan of which P.W.98 was the manager. He also showed P.W.94 who was examined. 25. A-12 was arrested on 27th December, 1966 and then P.W.108 sent First Information Report as per Exhibit P-125. 26. By 6th July, 1966, a counterfeit currency note of Rs. 2 denomination or M.O. 13 was received by P.W.108. A-4 showed Janardan Lunch House at Hassan of which P.W.98 was the manager. He also showed P.W.94 who was examined. 25. A-12 was arrested on 27th December, 1966 and then P.W.108 sent First Information Report as per Exhibit P-125. 26. By 6th July, 1966, a counterfeit currency note of Rs. 2 denomination or M.O. 13 was received by P.W.108. It had been according to the prosecution case, received by the goods clerk P.W.42, metre guage goods-shed, Bangalore City, during the course of the transactions on 18th June, 1966 and then had been sent to the Reserve Bank of India. 27. On 30th December, 1966, A-4 showed the shop of P.W.35 and P.W.36. A-9 led the police to the shop of M.A.T. Acharya run by P.W.50. The very same day he produced lock M.O. 20 from his house. It was seized under a mahazar. The investigation was completed thereafter. 28. It is further the case of the prosecution that investigation made as narrated in the preceding paragraphs disclosed that the twelve accused persons and the three others had, prior to April and May, 1966 or at least in April and May 1966 hatched criminal conspiracy for counterfeiting currency notes, making and possessing instruments and materials for counterfeiting currency notes and for using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes; that in pursuance of the said conspiracy A-1 and A-2 took P.Ws. 1, 4, 19 and 23 to Mysore in July, 1966 in order to show to P.Ws. 4 and 23 counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 2 and Rs. 5 and instruments and materials for preparing such counterfeit currency notes so that they could sell the same either to P.W.4 or to P.W.23; and that they, having failed in their said attempt, A-1 to A-4 in August, 1966, contacted P.W.84 Belliyappa in Highlands Hotel, Bangalore, showed him a bundle of counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination in order to make him agree to purchase not only the same but also the instruments and materials for preparing counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 and Rs. 5 denomination. They failed in this attempt. 29. It is further the case of the pro secution that thereafter in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy referred to above, A-4 went to Hassan and Sakleshapur and made attempts either to sell counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination or to put them in circulation. 2 and Rs. 5 denomination. They failed in this attempt. 29. It is further the case of the pro secution that thereafter in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy referred to above, A-4 went to Hassan and Sakleshapur and made attempts either to sell counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination or to put them in circulation. It appears that that attempt also did not materialise. 30. All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty. The say of the individual accused persons regarding the various circumstances appearing in evidence against each one of them will be narrated and dealt with at appropriate stages in the course of this judgment. It is, therefore, in our opinion, not necessary to narrate those details at this stage. 31. Sri Fyzee Mohamed, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of A-2, opened the case for the accused-appellants and argued in detail on behalf of A-2. Thereafter Sri B.V. Deshpande argued on behalf of A-1 and A-3 and Smt. Karpagam Kamath argued on behalf of A-4. We then proceeded to hear the learned State Public Prosecutor. The learned State Public Prosecutor argued in the first instance the case for the respondent-State in Criminal Appeals Nos. 111, 112, 122 and 123 of 1969. Then he argued Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1969. Arguments of the Counsel for A-5 to A-12 appearing for the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1969 were then heard. Arguments regarding the offences of criminal conspiracy as addressed by Sri Fyzee Mohamed, Advocate, were adopted by the remaining Advocates. 32. At the outset it was argued that P.W.108 did not issue First Information Report either on gaining information from the informant, or on 27th October, 1966 when P.W.105 showed him two counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination, or on 12th December, 1966, i.e., after completing the alleged raid on the shop of A-1, but issued it on 27th December, 1966 as per Exhibit P-125 i.e., after he had almost completed the investigation and, therefore, the investigation made fry him is suspect and the evidence of the various witnesses is to be viewed with. 33. In our opinion this contention has no force. P.W.108 has sworn that while he was conducting investigation in Crime No. 171 of 1966 of Chickpet Police Station, Bangalore, he got information that counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 and Rs. 33. In our opinion this contention has no force. P.W.108 has sworn that while he was conducting investigation in Crime No. 171 of 1966 of Chickpet Police Station, Bangalore, he got information that counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 and Rs. 5 denomination and blocks and instruments for manufacturing the same were available with A-1. He told the informant to collect further information in the matter and on 27th October. 1966 the informant communicated to him that A-1, two persons from Mysore and one person from Madras were involved in the said offences and that further details could be secured if a decoy-purchaser were to be sent to A-1 to settle talks of purchase of counterfeit currency notes and the instruments and materials for manufacturing the same. He has unequivocally sworn that Chickpet Police Station Crime No. 171 of T966 was for an offence under section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code and that he treated this information as information secured in the said Crime No. 171 of 1966 and investigated into the same. It is apparent that P.W.108 at that stage gathered that A-1, two persons from Mysore and one person from Madras as reported by the informant appeared to be concerned in the offence of criminal conspiracy involved in Crime No. 171 of 11966. The counterfeit currency notes concerned in Grime No. 171 of 1966 were of Rs. 5 denomination. In this connection it is to be remembered that according to the prosecution a counterfeit currency note of Rs. 5 denomination marked M.O. 8. has been seized from A-5. It is also to be remembered that it is the case of the prosecution that P.Ws. 4 and 23 were promised to be shown blocks for preparing counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 5 denomination. No cross-examination is directed against P.W.108 to disclose that even prior to 27th December, 1966, sufficient material showing that the offences concerned in this case were quite different from those in Crime No. 171 of 1966, was before him. Till 27th October, 1966, the information that had reached P.W.108 cannot be said to be information definitely disclosing commission of any of the offences under sections 489-A to 489-D of the Indian Penal Code. What P.W.108 found from P.W.105 on 27th October, 1966 could be regarded as P.W.108 securing positive material showing that A-1 was in possession of counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination. What P.W.108 found from P.W.105 on 27th October, 1966 could be regarded as P.W.108 securing positive material showing that A-1 was in possession of counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination. But it is to be taken into consideration that P.W.108 was attempting to go to the source of the counterfeiting racket and secure evidence in regard to the use and possession of instruments and materials for counterfeiting currency notes. It is in this attempt that he has gone on pursuing the clues available to him. The things that transpired during the raid of A-1’s shop on 12th December, 1966 could be regarded as positive material disclosing offences at least under sections 48g-B to 489-D and under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as against A-1 to A-4. But, it cannot be inferred that the offence of criminal conspiracy unearthed by P.W.108 on I2th December, 1966 as against A-1 to A-4 was quite different from the one concerned in Crime No. 171 of 1966 because a bundle of pieces of white paper cut to the size of currency notes of Rs. 5 denomination M.O. 26 were seized from the house of A-1 and counterfeiting of currency notes of Rs. 5 denomination was an offence involved in Chickpet Police Station Crime No. 171 of 1966. P.W.1 o8hason 13th December, 1966 itself, submitted Exhibit P-69 the mahazar and Exhibit P-70 the search list both of which pertain to the raid and seizure of articles made by him on 12th December, 1966, to the concerned Magistrate requesting for necessary orders for retention of the same in his custody. This he has done as part of the investigation in Chickpet Police Station Crime No. 171 of 1966. The Magistrate has passed the necessary orders and has also affixed his initials on 13th December, 1966 itself, on Exhibits P-69 and P-70. Therefore, we are of the opinion that P.W.108 has, at the earliest point of time after the raid on 12th December, 1966, reported all the facts that were within his knowledge to the concerned Magistrate. Ever if First Information Report had been issued by P.W.108, the same object would have been achieved. We, therefore, hold that this contention has to fail. 34. Currency notes alleged to be counterfeit are: one of Rs. 5 denomination M.O. 8, five of Rs. 2 denomination M.O. 9, two of Rs. 2 denomination M.O. 10, one of Rs. Ever if First Information Report had been issued by P.W.108, the same object would have been achieved. We, therefore, hold that this contention has to fail. 34. Currency notes alleged to be counterfeit are: one of Rs. 5 denomination M.O. 8, five of Rs. 2 denomination M.O. 9, two of Rs. 2 denomination M.O. 10, one of Rs. 2 denomination M.O. 13, and one of Rs. 2 denomination M.O. 34. It was contended that the evidence of Claude D’Souza, expert in detection of forged currency and bank notes in the India Security Press, Nasik Road. (P.W.103) disclosed that all the above said currency notes were crude forgery and therefore the prosecution had not established that these currency notes fell within the provisions of section 28 of the Indian Penal Code. 35. We have carefully seen these notes. The above said currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination are exactly similar in appearance to genuine notes. We found that it was only when these notes were held against light we could note the absence of water mark and the alphabets ‘RBI’ available in genuine currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination. It is difficult to imagine even, that whenever such currency notes are handed over, the recipient would-especially when the resemblance with genuine currency notes is accurate-hold such notes against light to examine whether the watermark and the alphabets ‘RBI’ appear there or not. Such a procedure can be expected to be adopted only if some suspicion is aroused on receipt of currency notes and that too in small numbers. On facts P.W.103 has sworn that in regard to the currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination narrated above it is a case of forging of genuine currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination A.P. Design 1962 Issue. He has unequivocally sworn that M.Os.7, 9, 10, 13 and 34 are forgeries and that some of these contain the watermark found on sunlit bond white paper which is at M.O.18, and that all these could be passed of in poor light as genuine currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination. The cross-examination does not at all disclose any material to hold that this opinion of the Expert cannot be accepted and relied upon. 2 denomination. The cross-examination does not at all disclose any material to hold that this opinion of the Expert cannot be accepted and relied upon. As already mentioned, on our own examination of M.Os.7, 9, 10, 13 and 34, the physical appearance of the said notes does not appear to be in any way different from that of genuine currency notes of Rs.2 denomination A.P. Design 1962 Issue. We have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with the finding of the Second Additional Sessions Judge that M.Os.7, 9, 10, 13 and 34 are counterfeit currency notes and the ingredients of the definition found in section 28 of the Indian Penal Code have been satisfactorily established. It is true that P.W.103 has sworn that M.O.8 currency note of Rs. 5 denomination appears to be crude forgery. P.W.103 has further sworn that even this currency note could be passed of in poor light. On examination of M.O.8 by ourselves we found that the separation of colours on it is not so very perfect as it is in genuine currency notes of that issue. But, still a sharp eye and some experience or knowledge in this connection appears to be necessary to distinguish this note from a genuine one. When P.W.103 has, under these circumstances, sworn that M.O.8 also could be passed of in poor light as genuine one, we have no reason to disagree with his opinion. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge that M.O.8, also is proved to be a counterfeit currency note and that the ingredients of the definition provided in section 28 of the Indian Penal Code are satisfactorily established. 36. The instruments and materials alleged to have been used for manufacturing are: blocks M.Os.1 to 6, metallic numerical types M.O.11 series, sunlit bond paper as found at M.O.18 and Press M.O.14. 37. P.W.103 has sworn that some of the counterfeit currency notes at M.Os.7, 9, 10, 13 and 34, bear water mark found in sunlit bond paper which is M.O.18. It is, therefore, apparent that the white paper used for the manufacture of M.Os.7, 9, 10, 13 and 34 is sunlit bond white paper It is not the genuine paper used by the Government Security Press while preparing genuine currency notes. It is, therefore, apparent that the white paper used for the manufacture of M.Os.7, 9, 10, 13 and 34 is sunlit bond white paper It is not the genuine paper used by the Government Security Press while preparing genuine currency notes. Under these circumstances, it will have to be, in our opinion, held that M.O.18 is established to be the material for forging or counterfeiting currency notes. P.W.103 has stated on oath that M.Os.1 to 6 are blocks capable of producing impressions which would be completely resembling the genuine currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination A.P. Design 1962 Issue. He has also sworn that out of M.Os.1 to 6, M.O.3 has not been used while M.Os.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have been used. Lastly, he has stated that M.Os.7, 9, 10, 13 and 34 could have been printed by means of M.Os.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. It cannot, in our opinion, be contended-and in fact it was not so contended on behalf of the defence-that M.Os.1 to 6 are not instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency notes. In regard to M.O.11 the metallic numerical type series, an attempt was made to contend that they are only numericals and such numericals cannot by themselves be held to be instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency notes. P.W.103 has in this connection sworn that these metallic numerical types produce impressions of numbers which are identical with the shapes and size of the numbers appearing on M.Os.7, 9, 10, 13 and 34. He has also sworn that M.O.11 series could have been used in numbering M.Os.7, 9, 10, 13 and 34. We are aware that mere possession of such types cannot be regarded as possessing instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency notes. The prosecution case is that these metallic numerical types were seized from A-7. Whether the prosecution has established that M.O.11 are instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency notes, will be dealt with in further details while dealing with the case against A-7. 38. it was contended that M.Os. 1 to 7 and 10 were admittedly not sealed and, therefore, there is no satisfactory proof of the very articles having been seized during the raid on 12th December, 1966. This argument is devoid of any force. These articles are such as to make a theory of planting impossible to be put forward. 38. it was contended that M.Os. 1 to 7 and 10 were admittedly not sealed and, therefore, there is no satisfactory proof of the very articles having been seized during the raid on 12th December, 1966. This argument is devoid of any force. These articles are such as to make a theory of planting impossible to be put forward. Moreover, these articles have been produced before the concerned Magistrate on 13th December, 1966 as already pointed out in the preceding paragraphs. 39. The evidence of P.W.105 was challenged on the ground that it is contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws. 108 and 65 as P.W.105 has not stated that M.O.10 was seized from A-2. M.O.10 consists of two counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination WU/47 530957. A reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 105, 65 and 108 plainly disclose that their evidence is cogent and consistent. These witnesses corroborate each other not only generally but also on all material particulars. It is true that P.W.105 has not made specific reference to the seizure of M.O.10 from A.-2. He has attested the mahazar Exhibit P-69. He has sworn to that fact. He has stated that M.O.7 was found in the shirt pocket of A-2, that A-3 and A-4 had got chits and letters with them and that the Inspector seized the objects found on making a search of the persons of the accused, and the materials found in the room. He has sworn to the contents of Exhibit P-69 the mahazar as correct and has stated that he has attested it. It is clear to our mind that it would be unreasonable to expect this witness P.W.105 to make it a point to specifically state in so many definite words about all the articles seized during the raid. What is to be looked for while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses is whether there is ring of truth in their evidence and whether evidence is given in a convincing way in regard to ad the different events that transpired during the occasion. We are not prepared to attach any importance to the fact that P.W.105 has not referred to M.O.10 having been seized from A-2. 40. A strange proposition that the testimony of P.Ws. We are not prepared to attach any importance to the fact that P.W.105 has not referred to M.O.10 having been seized from A-2. 40. A strange proposition that the testimony of P.Ws. 105, 65 and 108, who have all attested the mahazar Exhibit P-69, cannot be corroborated by the contents of the mahazar to which they have sworn specifically and in detail, was put forward by the defence. Of course the defence was not able to cite any authority in support of this proposition. P.Ws. 105, 65 and 108 were present during the raid. They witnessed everything that transpired at that point of time. Apart from these witnesses, there were three panchas also. They also witnessed the whole of the incident. They have attested the mahazar Exhibit P-69. Therefore, it will have to be held that P.Ws. 65, 105 and 108 are also the makers of the document Exhibit P-69 the mahazar. Section 159 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that a witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at the time fresh in ‘lis memory and that the witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct. When such refreshing of memory is permitted in law, we are unable to see any reason why the contents of the writing in Exhibit P-69 cannot be used to corroborate the testimony of these witnesses. Exhibit P-69 the mahazar contains a narration of the events that took place during the raid. It was recorded immediately thereafter in the very shop premises of A-1. The narration would be, in fact statement of the witnesses attesting Exhibit P-69 relating to the facts witnessed by them and made at or about the time when the facts narrated therein transpired. Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that in order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved. Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that in order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved. This provision shows that the proposition put forward is untenable in law. In the result, the lapse on the part of P.W.105 in regard to M.O.10 is of no consequence. It cannot be used to characterise the testimony of P.W.105 as unreliable. 41. Another attack made on the evidence of P.W.105 is on the ground that he being a decoy witness his testimony should be regarded as an interested one and, therefore, requiring corroboration. It was urged that unless corroboration in all particulars from independent quarters is available, his testimony cannot be relied upon. It was in this connection pointed out that the three panchas who are supposed to have attested Exhibit F-69 and C.W.2 Basha, who had accompanied P.W.105 have not been examined. It was also pointed but that C.W.2 Basha had been examined in the committing Court as P.W.33. 42. The records show that C.W.2 Basha has not been examined as his whereabouts were not known and the summons issued to him was returned as he was reported to have gone to Bombay and his Bombay address was not known. The three panchas have been given up on the ground that they had turned hostile. Exhibit P-135 is the statement of A-1 recorded under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the committing Magistrate. A perusal of it discloses that this C.W.2 Basha had been examined as P.W.33 in the committal proceedings and that he had supported the prosecution. The incriminating circumstances disclosed in his evidence have been put to A-1 in Exhibit P-135. It is, therefore, clear that there could not have been any ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution in giving up this witness by producing an unreliable report that the whereabouts of C.W.2 Basha were not known. There was apparently no reason for the prosecution to give up this witness and, therefore, it will have to be held that the reason mentioned while returning the summons issued to C.W.2 Basha must be true. There was apparently no reason for the prosecution to give up this witness and, therefore, it will have to be held that the reason mentioned while returning the summons issued to C.W.2 Basha must be true. No inference can, as contended by the defence, be drawn because of non-examination of this witness C.W.2. It is a well settled principle in law that all material evidence available to the prosecution and necessary for unfolding the prosecution case should be laid before the Court and that it can never be said to be the duty of the prosecution to examine all witnesses speaking to the same incriminating circumstance. The prosecution can, in law, rest its case after examining a few of any such witnesses. In Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, it is held as follows: “It is not unknown that where serious offences like murder are committed and a large number of accused persons are tried, attempts are made either to terrorise or win over prosecution witnesses, and if the prosecution honestly and bona fide believes that some of his witnesses have been won over, it would be unreasonable to insist that he must tender such witnesses before the Court. It is undoubtedly the duty of the prosecution to lay before the Court all material evidence available to it which is necessary for unfolding its case; but it would be unsound to lay down as a general rule that every witness must be examined even though his evidence may not be very material or even if it is known that he has been won over or terrorised. In such a case, it is always open to the defence to examine such witnesses as their witnesses and the Court can also call such witnesses in the box in the interest of justice under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code”. When the prosecution itself has given up examining the three panchas on the ground that they have turned hostile, no question of raising adverse inference against the prosecution case arises because an adverse inference, in law, could be that, it examined, these witnesses would not have supported the prosecution. But, this fact is admitted by the prosecution by filing a memo. that these panchas had turned hostile. In the result, what remains to be examined is whether the evidence of P.Ws. But, this fact is admitted by the prosecution by filing a memo. that these panchas had turned hostile. In the result, what remains to be examined is whether the evidence of P.Ws. 65, 105 and 108 on the point of raid can be held to be reliable or not. 43. The contention that P.W.105 being decoy witness, his evidence, without there being corroboration from independent quarters on all material particulars, cannot be relied upon, is not, in our opinion, sound as a general proposition of law. At the most, a decoy witness or a trap witness can be taken to be a witness interested in the success of the trap and, therefore, his evidence can be considered on par with the evidence of an interested witness. There is, in our opinion, no inflexible rule that testimony of interested witnesses cannot at all be relied upon unless corroboration from independent quarters is available either generally or in all material particulars. Principle of corroboration would be applicable if, in view of certain facts and circumstances existing in each case, evidence of such witnesses cannot be considered as safe to be relied upon on its intrinsic worth. We are of the opinion that in case testimony of such witnesses is found acceptable on its own, there being no inherent infirmities found in it, there would be no need to seek for corroboration from independent quarters. If for some reasons the evidence is found to suffer some intrinsic infirmities which by themselves do not go to shatter the evidence of such witnesses, then the rule of prudence would be to seek for corroboration in a general way from independent quarters. The rule of prudence cannot extend to seeking of material corroboration as if the evidence of such witnesses is the evidence of accomplices. Testimony of such witnesses can never be regarded on par with the testimony of accomplices. 44. The defence in support of its contention narrated above, placed reliance on the case: Bhasheeruddin Ahmed v. Government of Mysore1, State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh2, and Major E.G. Barsay v. Slate of Bombay3. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into further discussion on the point as the Supreme Court has settled the law on the point in Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave and another v. The State of Gujarat4. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into further discussion on the point as the Supreme Court has settled the law on the point in Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave and another v. The State of Gujarat4. The Supreme Court has, in this decision, after referring to its previous decision including the two cases cited above, laid down as follows: "This position is placed beyond controversy by the decision of this Court in the State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh2, wherein this Court laid down, overruling the decision in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh,5that where the witnesses are not accomplices but are merely partisan or interested witnesses, who are concerned in the success of the trap, their evidence must be tested in the same way as any other interested evidence is tested and in a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. We are unable to agree that any different rule was laid down in E.G. Barsay v. Stale of Bombay3. It must be remembered that the decision in Basawan Singh’s case2, was given by a Bench of Five Judges and that decision was binding on the Bench that decided Barsay’‘s case3. Some of the observations in Barsay’s case3 , no doubt support the contention of the appellants. But those observations must be confined to the peculiar facts of that case. It is now well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that while in the case of evidence of an accomplice, no conviction can be based on his evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars but as regards the evidence of a partisan witness it is open to a Court to convict an accused person solely on the basis of that evidence, if it is satisfied that that evidence is reliable. But it may in appropriate case look for corroboration. In the instant case, the trial Court and the High Court have fully accepted the evidence of Ramanlal. the Deputy Superintendent of Police Erulker and Santramji. That being so, it was open to them to convict the appellants solely on the basis of their evidence. That apart, their evidence is substantially corroborated by the evidence of Dahyabhai, Sanghvi and Sendhalal. In the instant case, the trial Court and the High Court have fully accepted the evidence of Ramanlal. the Deputy Superintendent of Police Erulker and Santramji. That being so, it was open to them to convict the appellants solely on the basis of their evidence. That apart, their evidence is substantially corroborated by the evidence of Dahyabhai, Sanghvi and Sendhalal. In the case of partisan witnesses, the corroboration that may be locked for is corroboration in a general way and not material corroboration as in the case of the evidence of accomplices." It is manifest that in the said decision evidence of trap witnesses was relied upon and conviction based on it without looking for corroboration even in a general way. The Supreme Court pointed out that the conviction was proper and that even though it had been held by the two Courts below that the evidence of trap witnesses was by itself reliable and acceptable, there was corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses, viz., Dahyabhai, Sanghvi and Sendhalal available in that case. It was tried to be argued that the Supreme Court was impressed by the fact that corroborative evidence was available. This argument is, on the face of it, far-fetched. In any case, in the instant case the evidence of the three witnesses, P.W.65, 105 and 109 is corroborated by the recovery of materials for counterfeiting currency notes, M.Os. 1 to 6. as stated already the recovery of the material objects cannot be doubted as they have been sent to the Court without any delay. 45. The prosecution case is that P.W.108 on being informed about the complicity of A-1, two persons from Mysore and one person from Madras asked P.W.65 his head Constable to secure a reliable and respectable person to be put forward as a purchaser of instruments and materials for forging currency notes P.W.65 approached his longstanding friend P.W.105. P.W.105 resides in the same lane where P.W.65 resides. The phone number of P.W.105 is 75786. In regard to this, suggestions have been put forward by the defence that P.W.105 is a person who accepts bets in New York cotton rates and, therefore, he has got a phone installed in his house. It has been also suggested that he operates as an unlicensed bookie outside the race-course in Bangalore and because of these activities he is an undesirable person. It has been also suggested that he operates as an unlicensed bookie outside the race-course in Bangalore and because of these activities he is an undesirable person. These suggestions have not at all been probablised by either putting forward or eliciting any material worthwhile. It was also contended that P.W.105 is a friend of the police because P.W.65 is his friend. We are unable to accept this contention though P.W.105 and P.W.65 have admitted that they are friends. Such friendship between two persons cannot be held to be sufficient to make P.W.105 a person who is under the obligation of the police. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.105 that he has never been a witness on any earlier occasion. It is, therefore, clear to our mind that P.W.65 must have approached P.W.105 because of P.W.105 being independent and respectable. 46. It was pointed out that the two counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination alleged to have been given by A-1 to P.W.105 on 27th October, 1966 are not before the Court and. therefore, there was no material to convince the Court that those notes were in fact fake notes. P.W.105 has sworn that A-1 gave them to him describing those notes as counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination. P.W.108 has sworn that be examined those notes and found that they were really good forgeries, and he returned them to P.W.105 who, in turn, handed over the same to A-1 and received back his deposit of Rs. 10. P.Ws. 105, 65 and 108 have sworn and their testimony is corroborated by the testimony of P.W.93, the driver of the car bearing Registration No. MYB. 6785 in regard to A-1, A-2 and P.W.105 proceeding in the same to Mysore and staying in Modern Hindu Hotel. It was contended that the evidence of P.W.93 cuts at the version of P.Ws. 105, 65 and 108 because P.W.93 has not at all stated that there was any sort of talk between A-1 and A-2 on the one hand and P.W.105 on the other during that period in regard to the offences in question. We see no force in this contention because it is apparent that there could not have been, in the very nature of things any discussion between these people within the hearing of P.W.93. We see no force in this contention because it is apparent that there could not have been, in the very nature of things any discussion between these people within the hearing of P.W.93. It is nobody’s case that P.W.93 had been taken into confidence either by the police or by P.W.105. On the other hand we found that it is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.93 as follows: "C.Ws. 1 and 2 were not conversing with each other in my presence." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 333 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.Ws. 1 and 2 are P.W.105 and Basha. It is, therefore, clear that P.W.93 could not at all have sworn to any facts concerning the offences in question. He is a witness competent only to speak of the visit of A-1, A-2 and P.W.105 to Mysore, their stay in Modern Hindu Hotel and following by P.W.65, P.W.105 and other police staff. P.W.93 has sworn that at Mysore A-1 and A-2 went out in his car to places leaving P.W.105 in the room. That is corroborated by P.Ws. 65 and 108. P.W.93 is an independent witness. His cross-examination has not disclosed any material which can be regarded as sufficient to discredit his testimony. Moreover P.W.88 K. Krishna Rao, an independent witness and who is the Assistant Manager of Modern Hindu Hotel, Mysore City, has sworn that on 2nd November, 1966, one S.N. Rao, 57, Infantry Road, Bangalore-1, had engaged room No. 1 in the upstairs and that G. Shankarappa had engaged room No. 19. He has sworn to these facts on the basis of Exhibit P-90 Hotel Register for the year 1966. He has further on sworn that on the very day, the occupant of room No. 1 had booked a trunk-call to Bangalore Phone No. 75/86 and talked to that number. The relevant entry in the trunk-call register Exhibit P-92 maintained by the Hotel is at Exhibit P-92(a). It can never be contended that P.W.88 is a got up witness and the registers Exhibits P-90 and P-92 are got up ones. There is the cash register Exhibit P-91 which shows that payments for the occupation of these two rooms had been made by the said persons. It is to be remembered that phone No. 75786 is the phone of P.W.105 and that No. 57, Infantry Road, is the place where the shop of A-1 is situated. There is the cash register Exhibit P-91 which shows that payments for the occupation of these two rooms had been made by the said persons. It is to be remembered that phone No. 75786 is the phone of P.W.105 and that No. 57, Infantry Road, is the place where the shop of A-1 is situated. S.N.Rao, the name in which room No. 1 was engaged is the name of A-1. A-1 has in his statement recorded under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stated that he might have on that occasion gone to Mysore. Though he appears not to have admitted having gone along with P.W.105, these facts are sufficient to hold that P.W.105 has sworn to true facts about the visit to Mysore on 1st November, 1966 and waiting in the compound of the Modern Hindu Hotel till the morning of 2nd November, 1966 for want of availability of rooms either in that hotel or in other hotels. The phone call corroborates the testimony of P.W.105 that he had booked a call to his house from the said hotel during that visit. The further inference that naturally arises is that the testimony of P.W.105 about his approaching A-1 on 27th October, 1966, is reliable. 47. As already pointed out, P.Ws. 65, 105 and 108 have sworn as to how the raid of the shop of A-1 took pace on 12th December, 1966 and what articles were found and seized during the raid. It has also been pointed out that the testimony of these three witnesses is natural, cogent and convincing. The witnesses corroborate each other not only in a general way, but in all material particulars Exhibit P-69, search list. Exhibit P-70 regarding the search of the house of A-1 and the articles described in Exhibits P-69 and P-70 have been, as narrated in on of the preceding paragraphs, produced before the concerned. Magistrate on 13th December, 1966. Therefore the theory of planting cannot hold water. Exhibit P-69 and Exhibit P-70 described how and from whom the said articles were seized. There is no suggestion even, made in the cross-examination of any one of these three witnesses that any one of them had any type of animosity against any of these accused persons. Magistrate on 13th December, 1966. Therefore the theory of planting cannot hold water. Exhibit P-69 and Exhibit P-70 described how and from whom the said articles were seized. There is no suggestion even, made in the cross-examination of any one of these three witnesses that any one of them had any type of animosity against any of these accused persons. In the result, we do not see any reason to doubt the testimony of P.W.105 We are of the opinion that P.W.105 is a witness of truth and his evidence does not suffer from any intrinsic infirmities and that therefore, there is no nee I to look for corroboration even in a general way. 48. That establishes that P.W.105 did in fact approach A-1 on 27th October 1966 and A-1 promised to secure him instruments and materials for forging currency notes, and forged currency notes, and gave him two fake-notes of Rs. 2 denominations that on 1st November 1966, A-1 and A-2 tools P.W.105 to Mysore in order to secure instruments and materials for forging currency notes from two persons there, and settled the bargain with P.W.105; and that on 12th December, 1966, the shop of A-1 was raided wherein A-1 to A-4 were found and the articles as narrated in the preceding paragraphs were seized from the different accused and the drawer of the table of A-1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 334 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49. Sri Fyzee Mohamad has pointed out that A-2 was found possessing M.O. 7, M.O. 10 and Exhibit P-84 and urged that the incriminating article can be only M.O. 10 because M.O. 7 is a paper on which there are two impressions or imprints of currency note of Rs. 2 denomination and Exhibit P.-84 is a lawyer’s notice dated 19th November, 1966. He further urged that M.O. 10 consists of two fake-notes of Rs. 2 denomination and mere possession of one or two such fake-notes would not be sufficient to make out an offence under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, against A-2. He also urged that the evidence of P.Ws. 105, 65, 108, 93 and 88 though accepted, would not be sufficient to make out an offence of criminal conspiracy against A-2. 50. He also urged that the evidence of P.Ws. 105, 65, 108, 93 and 88 though accepted, would not be sufficient to make out an offence of criminal conspiracy against A-2. 50. On the point that possession of one or two fake-notes would not be sufficient to make out an offence under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, he placed reliance on the decision in Bur Singh v. Emperor1. It is held therein that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the intention of the accused to foist the currency notes on public while proving an offence under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. The only circumstance found against the appellant in that case was his possessing three fake-notes of Rs. 100 denomination. In our opinion this principle has no application to the case on hand because such is not the only circumstance established against A-2. As per the evidence of P.W.105, A-1 was waiting for the arrival of A-2 and it was after the arrival of A-2 that A-1 contacted P.W.105 over the phone and told him that the materials were available and his presence was necessary and then it was A-1 and A-2 together that took P.W.105 to Mysore and that when they were unable to contact the concerned persons at Mysore, it was A-2 who assured P.W.105 that he (A-2) had fake-notes of Rs. 5 and Rs. 10 denominations and would give the same to P.W.105 and P.W.105 need not bother about it. When these circumstances are considered along with the finding of M.O. 10 in the shirt pocket of A-2, it is to be held that the prosecution has proved that A-2 had the necessary intention to foist these currency notes on the public all the while knowing the same to be counterfeit. He nextly relied upon the decision in Ragho Saran v. The State2. It is held therein that the intention to use forged notes as genuine is essential in proving an offence under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. In that case two counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 10 denomination were found in the possession of the appellant Ragho Saran. They were in the folds of his dhoti. There were no other circumstances available against Ragho Saran. Therefore, the reasoning already put forward above furnishes adequate reply to the contention. 51. The contention that the acceptance of the evidence of P.Ws. 10 denomination were found in the possession of the appellant Ragho Saran. They were in the folds of his dhoti. There were no other circumstances available against Ragho Saran. Therefore, the reasoning already put forward above furnishes adequate reply to the contention. 51. The contention that the acceptance of the evidence of P.Ws. 105, 93, 65, 108 and 88 and the seizure of articles under Exhibits P-69 and P-70 would not be sufficient to establish the charge under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, is, in our opinion, unsustainable. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.105, supported by the remaining witnesses narrated above, it is shown that A- 1 and A-2 had together talked with P.W.105 in regard to the sale of instruments and materials for forging currency notes and had taken P.W.105 to Mysore in order to show the said materials which were in possession of two other persons. This material is sufficient to lead to a further conclusion that A-1 and A-2 had the instruments and materials for forging currency notes under their control and they were capable of making over the same to P.W.105. They were, with the knowledge of each other, in possession of counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination and such notes were found in their possession; M.O. 10 having been found in the possession of A-2, and two counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination having been given by A-1 to P.W.105 on 27th October, 1966. It will have to be, therefore, held that A-1 and A-2 along with two others of Mysore had hatched a criminal conspiracy of possessing forged or counterfeit currency notes and instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting 1. A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 24. 2. A.I.R. 1961 Pat. 405. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 335 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- currency notes. On 12th December, 1966, A-3 and A-4 were also present in the shop of A-1 and M.Os. 1 to 6 the blocks were taken out by A-1 from the bag M.O. 24 which was in the possession of A-4. It is of course true that nothing was found in the possession of A-3. But it is proved beyond any doubt that A-3 was present there along with A-1, A-2 and A-4 while this event took place. In fact, A-3 had arrived at Bangalore and stayed in Bombay Anand Bhavan Hotel. It is of course true that nothing was found in the possession of A-3. But it is proved beyond any doubt that A-3 was present there along with A-1, A-2 and A-4 while this event took place. In fact, A-3 had arrived at Bangalore and stayed in Bombay Anand Bhavan Hotel. Old Poor House Lane, Bangalore-1 by 10-00 p.m. on nth December, 1966. M.O. 17 which is a slip issued by Bombay Anand Bhavan Hotel was found in the possession of A-3. P.W.17 K.M. Reddy is a material witness on this point. He has sworn that he was working as a cashier in Bombay Anand Bhavan Hotel, Old Poor House Road, Bangalore-1, from 1964 to 1967 and at 10-00 p.m. on 11th December, 1966 A-2 and A-3 took room No. 19 and made entries in the arrival register Exhibit P-14 maintained by the Hotel. He has sworn to the relevant entry at Exhibit P-14(a). He has produced the receipt book Exhibit P-15 depicting entries from 11th December, 1966 to 3rd January, 1967. Advance amount was also paid and that fact was mentioned at Exhibit P-15(a). It was vehemently contended by Sri Fyzee Mohamed that the evidence of this witness is not reliable because the name of A-3 only, is shown in the register and not the name of A-2 and that the word ‘Smt.‘appearing therein is not scored out and that would go to show that the wife of A-3 might have been with him. We are not at all impressed by this reasoning because we found on looking into the receipt book that in many cases the word ‘Smt’ which is in print has not been scored out. Moreover, it is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.108 that immediately after the raid on 12th December, 1966, A-3 took him to room No. 19 in the said hotel and P.W.108 searched the room. At that time P.W.108 had the remaining accused also with him. That goes to show that P.W.17, had an occasion to see A-2 again i.e., the very next day of his arrival. It is an undisputed fact that on 13th December, 1966 P.W.108 examined P.W.17. At that time P.W.108 had the remaining accused also with him. That goes to show that P.W.17, had an occasion to see A-2 again i.e., the very next day of his arrival. It is an undisputed fact that on 13th December, 1966 P.W.108 examined P.W.17. The contention that P.W.17 could not have remembered the faces of all the persons who visited the hotel on 11th December, 1966 cannot at all hold water because P.W.17 had the benefit of seeing A-2 and A-3 the very next day after 11th December, 1966. The bill has not been settled as yet. He had every reason to remember these two persons A-2 and A-3. That establishes that on nth December, 1966 A-2 and A-3 had stayed together in the said hotel and then they were found along with the remaining two accused in the shop of A-1 on 12th December, 1966 when the same was raided. A-3 cannot at all be regarded as an innocent bystander or a silent spectator during the raid. He has not put forward any explanation to explain his presence in the shop of A-1 at that point of time. If P.W.108 had any intention of unduly involving A-3 in these offences it was not at all difficult for him to plant one of the fake-notes on A-3. This goes to show that the investigation has been honest and fair. 52. There is another circumstance available to prove that A-3 must have appeared in the shop of A-1 in response to the call by A-1 in this connection. Exhibit P-6 the telegram receipt dated 8th December, 1966 was found during the raid, in the left-hand drawer of the table of A-1. The actual telegram that is traced to this receipt is Exhibit P-4. That fact cannot be dispute d because it is sworn to by independent witnesses who were at that time working in the Central Telegraph Office. The telegram Exhibit P-5 is addressed to A-3. The contents are: 53. “Start immediately with materials.” Sendar’s name is shown as Mani meaning thereby A-2. Possession of Exhibit P-6 by A-1 is sufficient to raise an inference that A-1 must be the person at whose instance Exhibit P-5 came to be despatched to A-3. The telegram Exhibit P-5 is addressed to A-3. The contents are: 53. “Start immediately with materials.” Sendar’s name is shown as Mani meaning thereby A-2. Possession of Exhibit P-6 by A-1 is sufficient to raise an inference that A-1 must be the person at whose instance Exhibit P-5 came to be despatched to A-3. P.W.28 I.S. Patil is the handwriting expert, who has examined the original telegram Exhibit P-5 original telegram Exhibit P-5 with the exemplar writings of A-1 at Exhibit P-30(a) to Exhibit P-30(e) and of A-2 at Exhibit P-31(a) to Exhibit P-31(e). He has sworn that the handwriting in Exhibit P-5 is that of A-1. No material has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to cast doubt on his evidence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 336 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is, therefore, to be held established that A-1 had sent Exhibit P-5 to A-3 as if the sender was A-2 and called A-3 to Bangalore. A-1 instructed A-3 to bring the materials also. The only inference possible is that the materials referred to in Exhibit P-5 must be those for forging or counterfeiting currency notes because by that time A-1 and A-2 had promised to supply the same to P.W.105 and had settled the deal at Rs. 25,000. In this very connection the next piece of circumstance available is phonogram Exhibit P-4 purported to have been sent by A-1 to A-2. It is dated 9th December, 1966. The contents of Exhibit P-4 are: 54. “Ramu arrived-start immediately”. A-2 has not admitted the receipt of this phonogram. But the witnesses of the Central Telegraph Office have sworn that such a phonogram was received on 9th December, 1966 and it was duly despatched and this phonogram was from telephone No. 74369. The sender’s name would be that of the owner of the said telephone. It is an undisputed fact that this telephone is owned by P.W.64 who is the brother-in-law of A-1. There is abundant evidence to show-and in fact it has been admitted by P.W.64-that A-1 used this telephone for his own purposes also. It is easy to infer that Ramu referred to in Exhibit P-4 is none other than A-3. It is an undisputed fact that this telephone is owned by P.W.64 who is the brother-in-law of A-1. There is abundant evidence to show-and in fact it has been admitted by P.W.64-that A-1 used this telephone for his own purposes also. It is easy to infer that Ramu referred to in Exhibit P-4 is none other than A-3. It is to our mind crystal clear that A-1 after sending telegram Exhibit P-5 to A-3 as if the same emanated from A-2, secured the presence of A-3 at Bangalore and the very next day i.e., after the arrival of A-3 in Bangalore sent the phonogram Exhibit P-4 to A-2 at Alangayam informing A-2 to start as A-3 had already arrived. It cannot be forgotten that all this trouble has been undertaken by A-1 because of the deal that he and A-2 had finalised with P.W.105 as already held established on the basis of the evidence of P.W.105. It would be, therefore, idle to contend that no articles having been found in the possession of A-3, he cannot be held guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy. 55. The prosecution has at the instance of A-3 and A-4, unearthed additional evidence establishing circumstances which go in support of the conclusion that such a criminal conspiracy had been hatched even prior to or at least in July, 1966, and attempts were being made by these four accused persons to fir d out customers in order to sell forged currency notes and M.Os. 1 to 6. P.W.84 is one Belliyappa, a planter of Sakaleshpur. He used to stay in Highlands Hotel at Bangalore. P.W.25, N. Sriram is the proprietor of the said hotel. He has sworn to the hotel register Exhibit P-25. It is from 1st July, 1966 to 18th August, 1966. He has sworn that A-2 had stayed in that hotel for not less than ten times and on 3rd August, 1966 he had occupied room No. 45. The relevant entry in Exhibit P-25 is at Exhibit P-25(a). He stayed there for four days. Even thereafter he had visited the hotel on three occasions. He has also sworn that A-1 and A-3 had visited A-2 on at least seven occasions during the period that A-2 was staying in that hotel. A-2 has, in his statement recorded under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, admitted his stay in that hotel. Even thereafter he had visited the hotel on three occasions. He has also sworn that A-1 and A-3 had visited A-2 on at least seven occasions during the period that A-2 was staying in that hotel. A-2 has, in his statement recorded under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, admitted his stay in that hotel. P.W.84 has sworn that he knows P.W.1 C.E. Amery and that in August, 1966 Amery contacted him and told him that there was a person who was interested in purchasing coffee estate. He took A-1 to P.W.84. At that time A-1 told him that a person was interested in purchasing coffee estate and he was staying in Highlands Hotel. A-1 took P.W.84 to Highlands-Hotel and introduced P.W.84 to A-2. While the talks were going on in the room occupied by A-2, A-3 arrived there. Then P.W.84 asked A-2 as to how he was going to pay for the estate to be purchased by him and at that A-2 introduced the topic of fake currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination. He told P.W.84 that he would prepare such fake notes and that P.W.84 was to finance the preparation of such notes. At that stage A-3 went out and brought A-4 who had a white cloth bag. A-3 took out two bundles wrapped in a paper and gave them to A-2. One bundle was opened and shown to P.W.84. It contained new counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination which appeared to be just like genuine ones. A-1 and A-2 both told P.W.84 that the other bundle contained the blocks for the preparation of fake currency notes. P.W.84 straightaway refused to enter into -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 337 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- any kind of deal for preparing fake currency notes. He told them that in Madras he had been cheated by a person who posed himself capable of doubling the money, and had lost heavily. A-1 and A-2 promised that they would be able to secure that money back for P.W.84 and on P.W.84 telling that he had no money to make a trip to Madras, A-1 advanced Rs. 1,000 to P.W.84 and they went to Madras. The evidence of P.W.84 is corroborated by P.W.1 Amery who is a car broker. 56. A-1 and A-2 promised that they would be able to secure that money back for P.W.84 and on P.W.84 telling that he had no money to make a trip to Madras, A-1 advanced Rs. 1,000 to P.W.84 and they went to Madras. The evidence of P.W.84 is corroborated by P.W.1 Amery who is a car broker. 56. Sri Fyzee Mohamed contended that neither P.W.1 nor P.W.84 have disclosed this information about these accused laving committed an offence to anyone till examined by the police and, therefore, their evidence is in the nature of accomplice evidence and as such should not be relied upon without corroboration. He further urged that there is lot of delay on these witnesses disclosing this information to the police and, hence, it is prudent to look for corroboration to their evidence. 57. P.W.84 is an independent witness who has nothing against any of these four accused persons A-1 to A-4. According to him, he was approached by A-1 and A-2 to enter into such a deal and he flatly refused. We are unable to see how P.W.84 can be regarded as a sort of an accomplice. If he had in any way agreed to enter into the transaction in any manner as proposed by A-1 and A-2 and supported by A-3 and A-4, then it could have been argued that P.W.84 is a sort of an accomplice. It is not the fault of P.W.84 that he was approached by A-1 and A-2 and invited to take part in the commission of an offence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.84 cannot be regarded to be in the nature of accomplice evidence. On the point of delay in coming forward with such an information, the Court will have to look to the attendant circumstances. The delay has not been deliberate. P.W.84 apparently had no intention of suppressing this information. All that can be said is that he was not anxious to volunteer this information to the authorities. Therefore, this delay cannot lead to an inference that the evidence of P.W.84 would be rendered suspicious. Sri Fyzee Mohamed placed reliance on the decision in Ishan Chandra v. Queen Empress1. P.W.84 apparently had no intention of suppressing this information. All that can be said is that he was not anxious to volunteer this information to the authorities. Therefore, this delay cannot lead to an inference that the evidence of P.W.84 would be rendered suspicious. Sri Fyzee Mohamed placed reliance on the decision in Ishan Chandra v. Queen Empress1. It is seen therein that where an informer was, upon his own statement, cognizant of the commission of an offence and omitted to disclose it for six days the Court was not prepared to say that he was an accomplice but held that his testimony was not such as to justify a conviction except where it was corroborated. He then relied on the decision in ameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan2. The Supreme Court has, while dealing with the evidence of a raped child, laid down in this decision that "the rule, which according to the case has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction, but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the Judge, and in jury cases must find place in the charge, before a conviction without corroboration can be sustained". Further on it has held that "the only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand". It is seen that in the very same decision, their Lordships have observed that "it would be impossible, indeed it would be dangerous, to formulate the kind of evidence which should, or would, be regarded as corroboration. Its nature and extent must necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged". Its nature and extent must necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged". Nextly he placed reliance on the decision in Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy and others v. State of Hyderabad3, wherein their Lordships, while dealing with the evidence of a person witnessing a crime, but not giving information, have observed as follows: "There is no warrant for the extreme proposition that if a nun sees the 1. (1894) I.L.R. 21 Cal.328. 2. 1952 S.C.J. 46:1952 S.C.R. 377: (1952)1 M.L.J. 440: A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 54. 3. 1956 S.C.J. 382: 1956 S.C.R. 247: A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 379. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 338 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- perpetration of a crime and does not give information of it to anyone else, he must well be regarded in law as an accomplice and that he could be put in the dock with the actual criminals. Indeed, there can be no doubt that the evidence of such a man should be scanned with much caution and the Court must be fully satisfied that he is a witness of truth, especially when no other person was present at the time to see the murder. Though he was not an accomplice, the Court would still went corroboration on material particulars as he is the only witness to the crime and as it would be unsafe to the accused (four in this case) on his sole testimony unless the Court feels convinced that he is speaking the truth. Such corroboration need not, however, be on the question of the actual commission of the offence. What the law requires is that there would be such corroboration of the material part of the story connecting the accused with the crime as will satisfy reasonable minds that the man can be regarded as a truthful witness." It is, therefore, clear that P.Ws. 1 and 84 cannot be regarded in law as accomplices. Their evidence cannot be looked at from that point of view. The rule of prudence is that because of the delay committed by these persons in coming forward with the information, it would be better to look for corroborative evidence to lend assurance to the mind of the Court that these witnesses are witnesses of truth. There can be no quarrel with this proposition of law. The rule of prudence is that because of the delay committed by these persons in coming forward with the information, it would be better to look for corroborative evidence to lend assurance to the mind of the Court that these witnesses are witnesses of truth. There can be no quarrel with this proposition of law. P.Ws. 1 and 84 have corroborated each other. The stay of A-2 in Highlands Hotel has been sworn to by P.W.25-P.W.25 has also corroborated the evidence of these witnesses on the point that A-1 and A-3 used to visit A-2 during the stay of A-2 in that hotel. Nextly, there is the evidence of the room-boy P.W.26 Marappa. He has also corroborated these witnesses. We are convinced that P.W.84 and P.W.1 are witnesses of truth. It will have to be, therefore, held that even in August, 1966 a criminal conspiracy, which is the gravamen of the charge against these accused, had already been hatched by these accused persons. 58. In regard to the period July, 1966, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 19 and 23. P.W.1 Amery was a partner in Fair Deal Motors, the office of which is situated by the side of the shop of A-1. P.W.19 is Mathews Benjamin. He was a partner with P.W.1 in Fair Deal Motors. Both of them knew A-1. It is the say of P.W.1 that A-2 had, in June, 1966, given a taxi to A-1 for overhauling and as such was. visiting A-1 and hence he and A-2 came in contact with each other. In July, 1966, A-1 approached P.W.1 and asked him whether he knew anyone interested in financing and taking over the printing and manufacturing counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 and Rs. 5, denominations. A-2 was present in the shop of A-1 at that time. P.W.1 replied that he did not know anyone interested in such a transaction. Then the very same day, A-1 took P.W.1 in a car, on the pretext of dropping P.W.1 at his house, to the house of P.W.19 where A-1 asked P.W.19 whether P.W.19 would be able to secure a person interested in taking over a press for manufacturing the said fake notes which was in the possession of A-2 at Mysore because there was a dispute amongst the partners who owned this material. A-1 told P.W.19 that the price would be Rs. A-1 told P.W.19 that the price would be Rs. 25,000. P.W.19. Mathews replied in the negative, and then added that he had a friend by name Laxminarayana Shetty (P.W.4) and they might approach him. Thus, all of them went in search of P.W.4 and found that he was attending Court in Mayo Hall and hence went there. When they were there, they not only met P.W.4 but also P.W.23 B.R.L. Gupta. A-1 and A-2 told about the transaction, which they wanted to put through, to P.Ws. 4 and 23, and then it was settled that all should go to Mysore where A-1 and A-2 were to show fake currency notes and instruments and materials for manufacturing the same. Accordingly these persons left for Mysore during the night in two cars. One was driven byP.W.19 and that had been borrowed by P.W.4 from his friend. By that time A-3 had joined A-1 and A-2. A-1, A-2, A-3, P.W.1 and P.W.19 proceeded in that car. P.Ws. 4 and 23 proceeded in a, taxi. They were taken to a compound by the side of Ritz Hotel. There was. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 339 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a workshop in that compound. A-2 and A-3 went in the taxi in which P.Ws.4 and 23 had arrived and brought A-4. A-4 had a cloth handbag with him. Watchman P.W.45 was present at that workshop. Then in the light shed by a torch and shed by the roof light of a car, A-2 showed M.Os.1 to 6 from out of the bag carried by A-4. He also took out another paper cover from that bag and showed nearly. a dozen of counterfeit Rs. 2 currency notes. A sheet of paper was also along with those notes. That contained six impressions of Rs. 2 notes at different stages of printing. Another sheet contained two impressions. Another sheet contained five impressions of Rs. 5 note. 8 to 10 currency notes of Rs. 5 denomination in light-green colour were also shown to P.Ws.4 and 23 by A-2, A-1 tried to put impressions on a piece of paper by using M.Os.1 to 6, but could not succeed effectively and ultimately that paper was burnt. It is to be noted that there were no blocks for preparing fake currency notes of Rs. 5 denomination. 5 denomination in light-green colour were also shown to P.Ws.4 and 23 by A-2, A-1 tried to put impressions on a piece of paper by using M.Os.1 to 6, but could not succeed effectively and ultimately that paper was burnt. It is to be noted that there were no blocks for preparing fake currency notes of Rs. 5 denomination. By the time all this happened, the day had dawned and the party returned to Bangalore. The evidence is that later on P.Ws.4 and 23 talked with each other and they were contacted by the accused and they refused to enter into the deal. 59. It is needless to say that P.Ws.1, 4, 19 and 23 have all corroborated each other on all material particulars. P.W.45 is an independent witness who was working as a watchman at that workshop in the compound which is by the side of Ritz Hotel at Mysore. He has sworn about the arrival of one taxi and a car about 2½ years prior to his deposition and there being four persons in the car including A-3 and two persons in the taxi which was standing at a distance of 50 yards from the car. He has also sworn that the occupants of the car had a talk with A-3 for about 45 minutes. A-2 has admitted the visit to Mysore during that period and has explained that he had gone there to sell a car that belonged to him to P.W.4. But the evidence of P.W.45 belies the explanation. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge has held that the necessary corroboration sufficient to assure the Court that P.Ws.1, 4, 19 and 23 are witnesses of truth is found in the testimony of P.W.45. We are of the opinion that the facts narrated and discussed about show that the conclusion arrived at by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge cannot be assailed. It would be, in our opinion, not possible to contend that the evidence of P.W.45 does not afford corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 19 and 23 sufficient to lend assurance to the mind of the Court that these witnesses are witnesses of truth. 60. It would be, in our opinion, not possible to contend that the evidence of P.W.45 does not afford corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 19 and 23 sufficient to lend assurance to the mind of the Court that these witnesses are witnesses of truth. 60. The evidence dealt with in the preceding paragraphs is more than ample to establish that A-1 to A-4 had, even prior to July, 1966, hatched this criminal conspiracy and were in possession of not only counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 2 and Rs. 5 denomination, but also M.Os.1 to 6, M.O.13 is a fake currency note of Rs. 2 denomination. There is indisputable evidence that it was received on 18th June, 1966 by P.W.42 Parthasarathy, a goods clerk in the meter-gauge section, Railways, Bangalore. M.O.13 bears No. W/47 530957. It is evident that it is one of the series out of which M.O.10 came from. M.O.10, it may be remembered, was found in the shirt pocket of A-2 during the raid on 12th December, 1966.This leads to an inference that these accused persons, who were in possession of such counterfeit currency notes and instruments and materials for manufacturing the same, had already put into circulation a few of such fake-currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination. 61. One more circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against A-4 is the attempt made by A-4 in about the 2nd week of October, 1966. It was A-4 who pointed out Lakshmi Janardhana Lunch Home at Hassan to P.W.108. P.W.98 Tirunarayana Iyengar was working as a manager. He has produced Exhibit P-96 and has sworn that on loth October, 1966 one Nagaraj of Mysore Calender, had engaged a room and stayed in that hotel. The entry is at Exhibit P-96(a). A-4 is Nagaraja. Gupta. The facts that A-4 pointed out this hotel and that it is seen at Exhibit P. 96(a) that one Nagaraj of Mysore Calendar had stayed in that hotel on 10th October, 1966 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 340 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lead to an inference that it was A-4 who had stayed there at that time. It is to be remembered that the contention of A-4 is that he was all along doing calendar business, i.e., securing orders for printing and supplying calendars. In this connection it is to be noted that A-4 further pointed out P.W.94 C.S. Ramaiah to P.W.108. P.W.94. It is to be remembered that the contention of A-4 is that he was all along doing calendar business, i.e., securing orders for printing and supplying calendars. In this connection it is to be noted that A-4 further pointed out P.W.94 C.S. Ramaiah to P.W.108. P.W.94. has sworn that A- 4 and P.W.87 Balasubramanya Gupta who is a relative of A-4, had gone to him when A-4 showed him fake notes of Rs. 5, Rs. 2 and Re. 1 denominations and asked him to find out some customers as he was prepared to give double the amounts. He has nextly stated that fake-notes of Rs. 2 denomination shown to him were similar to M.O.No. 9 and fake-notes of Rs. 5 denomination were similar to M.O.No. 8. He told that he did not know anyone. He then brought P.Ws.85 and 86 and A-4 showed the said notes to them also. They also replied that they could not find out any customer for those notes. The evidence of these witnesses is corroborated by P.W.87 who is admittedly a relative of A-4. Of course P.Ws.85 and 86 have also corroborated. We are unable to see any reason to reject the testimony of these witnesses. It is, therefore, clear that after failing in their attempts to secure customers till the 2nd week of October, 1966, A-4 must have gone on a visit to Sakaleshpur and made this attempt by enlisting the services of his relation P.W.87. 62. The foregoing reasons show that the conclusions arrived at by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge as against A-1, A-2, A-3 and A- 4 cannot be interfered with. The conviction of these accused persons is to be sustained. 63. Coming to the State appeal, it is to be stated that the learned State Public Prosecutor stated very fairly-and in our opinion justinably-that the evidence produced by the prosecution would not be sufficient to establish the guilt of A-6 and A-8 to A-12. He attempted to contend that an offence under section 489-A of the Indian Penal Code, could be held established on the evidence of P.Ws.108, 34 and 47. According to the prosecution, the press M.O.14 was purchased by A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-7 from P.W.31 Gopal Shetty through the intervention of P.W.30 Manickyam who had manufactured it and transported to Mysore. He attempted to contend that an offence under section 489-A of the Indian Penal Code, could be held established on the evidence of P.Ws.108, 34 and 47. According to the prosecution, the press M.O.14 was purchased by A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-7 from P.W.31 Gopal Shetty through the intervention of P.W.30 Manickyam who had manufactured it and transported to Mysore. By the evidence of P.Ws.34, 47, 108 and 43, the prosecution has sought to establish that A-3 led the police and the panchas to the house of Javaraiah father of A-9 and when Javaraiah was questioned about the press, Javaraiah took them to the carpentry shed of P.W.27 Ramachandra and on opening the said carpentry shed, Javaraiah produced two gunny bags M.O.19 from a room in that shed which contained the parts of press M.O.14. P.W.43 is the panch and Exhibit P-28 is a mahazar. It is apparent that but for the showing by A-3, the carpentry shed of P.W.27 could not have been discovered by the police. P.W.27 of course has not supported the prosecution and it is no wonder. A-3 has pointed out Javaraiah who has produced the press M.O.14 in connection with the offences that were being investigated by P.W.108. If the press had nothing to do with these offences, A-3 would not have taken P.W.108 and the panchas and given information about M.O.14. It will have to be, therefore, held established that it was at the instance of A-3 that the press M.O.14 was recovered. P.Ws.34, 47 and 108 have spoken that this press was assembled and a frame was supplied by P.W.47 and M.Os.1 to 6 were fitted into that frame which was accommodated in the press M.O.14 and with the ink supplied by P.W.47. impressions of the blocks as per Exhibit P-54, series were taken. P.W.34 fixed the woodden bases to M.Os.1 to 6 so as to accommodate them in the frame supplied by P.W.47. P.Ws.108 and 47 have sworn that A-2 and A-3 attended to the assembling of M.O.14 and arranging M.Os.1 to 6 in the press and printing Exhibit P-54 series. The defence pointed out that P.W.47 has contradicted himself on the point whether A-2 and A-3 assembled and operated the press at that point of time. P.Ws.108 and 47 have sworn that A-2 and A-3 attended to the assembling of M.O.14 and arranging M.Os.1 to 6 in the press and printing Exhibit P-54 series. The defence pointed out that P.W.47 has contradicted himself on the point whether A-2 and A-3 assembled and operated the press at that point of time. The evidence of P.W.47 discloses that in the committing Court he had stated as per Exhibit D-28 that he had taken four prints from each block and as per Exhibit D-29 that he had taken the prints at Exhibit P-54(a) to Exhibit P. 54 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 341 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (e). He has not stated before the committing Magistrate that A-2 and A-3 took prints from M.O. 14. It is, therefore, seen that this witness does not appear to be clear in his mind as to whether A-2 and A-3 assembled the press and operated it and took Exhibit P-54 series. But what can be held established is that M.Os. 1 to 6 could be fitted into a frame which in turn could be fitted in to the press M.O. 14 and that arrangement could print the series of Rs. 2 currency notes impressions of which are found at Exhibit P-54 series. In our opinion, this material would not be sufficient to hold that the fake currency notes seized in this case had been printed by A-2 and A-3 or by any of the other accused persons in this press M.O. 14. The possibility of M.O. 14 having been used to print notes by means of M.Os. 1 to 6 can be held established. But the fact that it had been actually operated by any one of these accused persons and the fake currency notes seized in this case were printed in it, cannot be held proved. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be held to have established the charge under section 489-A of the Indian Penal Code. 64. On the point of pointing out of persons and places by A. 3 and other accused, as made out by the prosecution, the defence contended that while examining A. 3 and the other accused such incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them have not been put and, therefore, the Court cannot rely on those circumstances to base a conviction. 64. On the point of pointing out of persons and places by A. 3 and other accused, as made out by the prosecution, the defence contended that while examining A. 3 and the other accused such incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them have not been put and, therefore, the Court cannot rely on those circumstances to base a conviction. Reliance was placed on the decision in Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh1. It is held therein that in the absence of a chance being given to an accused to explain a circumstance appearing in evidence against him, that circumstance cannot be used against him. But, this decision is found to have been explained by the Supreme Court in Jai Dev v. State of Punjab2. It has been held therein that the ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under section 342 would be to enquire whether, having regard to all the questions put to him, he did get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against him, and if it appears that the examination of the accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that would no doubt be a serious infirmity. Further on it is observed as follows: "It is obvious that no general rule can be laid down in retard to the manner in which the accused person should be examined under section 342. Broadly stated, however, the true position appears to be that passion for brevity which may be content with asking a few omnibus general questions is as much inconsistent with the requirements of section 342 as anxiety for thoroughness which may dictate an unduly detailed and large number of questions which may amount to the cross-examination of the accused person." It is therefore, seen that non-examination of an accused in regard to a particular circumstance appearing in evidence against him is not, by itself, sufficient to hold that that circumstance cannot be used against him. Furthermore, prejudice must have resulted because of such non-examination. A1 these accused persons have put forward flat denial as their defence. A-3, A-4, A-5, and A-7, who have, according to the prosecution, either given information leading to discovery of cer;ain facts or pointed out certain persons or places, have totally denied having done so. Furthermore, prejudice must have resulted because of such non-examination. A1 these accused persons have put forward flat denial as their defence. A-3, A-4, A-5, and A-7, who have, according to the prosecution, either given information leading to discovery of cer;ain facts or pointed out certain persons or places, have totally denied having done so. Therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that even if these circumstances had been put to these accused persons while examining them under section 34a of the Criminal Procedure Code, they would have simply put forward a flat denial. In Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar3, the Supreme Court has, while dealing on the point in regard to non-examination of the concerned accused about recovery of the blood-stained strands of female hair, held as follows: "The defence of the appellant was a total denial and even if the recovery of the blood-stained strands of female hair was put to the appellant, he 1. A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 468. 2. (1964) M.L.J. (Crl.) 478: (1964) 2 S.C.J. 272: (1963)3 S.C.R. 489 : A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 612. 3. 1959 S.C.J. 222: 1959 S.C.R. 1336: (1959) M.L.J.(Crl.) 109: A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 18. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 342 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- would undoubtedly have denied such recovery as having been made at his pointing out the place". On the basis of this reasoning, the Supreme Court concluded that though the Additional Judicial Commissioner failed to comply with the provisions of section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the circumstance mentioned above could be used against the concerned accused as no prejudice appeared to have been caused to the accused by not putting that circumstance while examining him under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The same is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Makan Jivan and others v. The State of Gujarat1. In that case, the accused had put forward a defence of their not being present at the scene at the time of the occurrence. It was found that the mode in which their statements under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code had been recorded, was unsatisfactory. All that had been done was reading over of the statements made by the different accused in the committing Court and merely asking them as to what they had to say about the prosecution case recorded in their presence. All that had been done was reading over of the statements made by the different accused in the committing Court and merely asking them as to what they had to say about the prosecution case recorded in their presence. Their Lordships held that errors or omissions in complying with the provisions of section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code are curable irregularities and the question whether the trial is vitiated depends upon whether prejudice has been caused to the accused. The decision in Bimbadhar Pradhan v. State of Orissa2was relied upon. The reasoning put forward by Their Lordships is as follows: "Where the trial Court, after reading out the statements made by the accused in the committal Court, merely asked them as to what they had to say about the prosecution evidence recorded in their presence, the examination is highly defective, but in view of the plea of the accused that they were not present at the scene at the time of the occurrence, any further question to them would have been purposeless and so, there was a no prejudice". We, therefore, held that the contention raised by the defence is not tenable. 65. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted A-5 on applying the principle in Bur Singh v. Emperor3. It is to be remembered that A-5 was arrested on 18th December, 1966, in Madurai. A-3 had taken P.W.108 on 16th December, 1966 to Madurai and showed the houses of A-5, A-7 and Phelomena Raj. They were not present. On 18th December, 1966, A-5 was found at about 3-00 p.m. Search of his person as per mahazar Exhibit P-85 disclosed that he had a Tamil novel M.O. 33 and in the pages of that novel were found M.O. 34 one counterfeit currency note of Rs. 2 denomination and M.O. 8 one counterfeit currency note of Rs. 5 denomination. These facts are sworn to by P.W.108 and mahazardar P.W.72 and so also the Sub-Inspector of Police of Madurai P.W.71. Nothing is elicited in the testimony of P.W.72 to throw doubt on his evidence. He is an independent witness. As against this material, A-5 has put forward a flat denial. Therefore the finding of M.Os. 8 and 34 in the possession of A-5 must be held established. While dealing with the evidence pointing against A-5, the learned Sessions Judge has discarded the testimony of P.Ws. 8 and 40. He is an independent witness. As against this material, A-5 has put forward a flat denial. Therefore the finding of M.Os. 8 and 34 in the possession of A-5 must be held established. While dealing with the evidence pointing against A-5, the learned Sessions Judge has discarded the testimony of P.Ws. 8 and 40. P.W.40 has sworn that he knew A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-11 and that A-2 was trading in paddy while in Mysore. P.W.40 owns a fuel depot near about Brindavan Lodge in Mysore. It is his say that about 2½ to 2¾ years prior to his examination (in December. 1969) A-2 approached him stating that he was in urgent need of money and requested for an advance of Rs. 1,000. A-5 and A-11 had accompanied him. P.W.40 said that he had no money, but A-2 pestered him. A-5 told P.W.40 that he would give double the amount in fake currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination. P.W.4o refused to enter into that kind of transaction. He has gone on to swear that these persons had come to him from Brindavan Lodge. His evidence was attacked on the ground that it is unnatural because A 2 was a stranger to him and A-2 had no deal- 1. (1971) S.C.D. 721: (1970) 2 S.C.W.R. 99: 1971 Cr.L.J. 1310: A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1797. 2. 1956 S.C.J. 441: 1956 S.C.R.206: (1956) 2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 13: A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 469. 3. A.I.R. 1931 Lah.24. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 343 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ings with him at any time. We are unable to see any force in this contention. The defence asked us to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.40 on the ground that though this witness came to know of the offence of possessing fake currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination by A-5, he did not give information. We are not impressed by this reasoning because it is not the say of this witness that A-5 did show currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination and he found them to be forged. All that the witness has stated is what A-5 told him in regard to payment towards the advance amount of Rs. 1,000 if advanced by P.W.40. No reasons worth the name are there to reject the testimony of this witness. The evidence of this witness shows the connection between A-5 and A-2 in regard to fake notes of Rs. All that the witness has stated is what A-5 told him in regard to payment towards the advance amount of Rs. 1,000 if advanced by P.W.40. No reasons worth the name are there to reject the testimony of this witness. The evidence of this witness shows the connection between A-5 and A-2 in regard to fake notes of Rs. 2 denomination. P.W.103 the Expert has sworn that M.O.34 also could have been printed by the blocks M.Os.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. The very reasoning cannot be applicable to the case of A-11 because A-11 is not made out to have done anything actively when these people approached P.W.40. Merely because he was found to be present along with A-2 and A-5, it cannot be held that he had something to do with the fake notes. P.W.30 Manikyam has sworn that he had manufactured M.O.14 for P.W.31 Gopal Setty who is a printer and that after he supplied the same to P.W.31, P.W.31 complained about the performance of the press and that P.W.31 got another one made from P.W.30 and at the same time disposed of M.O.14. P.W.30 has further sworn that A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-7 had approached him and asked him for a press and he directed them to P.W.31 where M.O.14 was shown to these people. P.W.31 has sworn that A-3, A-4 and A-7 went to him and settled the price of M.O.14 at Rs. 950 and purchased the same. The evidence of P.Ws.30 and 31 cannot be attacked on the ground that they are got up witnesses. There is not even an iota of material to hold against the testimony of these two witnesses. Though A-5 was not present when the press was actually purchased from P.W.31, the evidence of P.W.30 makes it abundantly clear that A-5 was also one of the persons who had gone for the purchase of the press. P.W.107 Sangulla has stated that his friend Azim who is a car broker took A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-10 to him and told him that they wanted a printing press to be transported from Nagarthapet to Mysore and that it was the press of A-3. P.W.107 Sangulla has stated that his friend Azim who is a car broker took A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-10 to him and told him that they wanted a printing press to be transported from Nagarthapet to Mysore and that it was the press of A-3. Accordingly they took his car to the printing press in Nagarthapet and dis-assembled the press and put it into the car and thereafter A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-10 went to Mysore where the parts of the press were unloaded at a place in Nanjangud Road. It is hence seen that the association of A-5 with the transaction in regard to M.O.14 the press is not only sworn to by P.W.30 but by P.W.107 also. This fact read with the finding of fake notes M.Os.34 and 8 in his possession and the evidence of P.W.40 would be, in our opinion, sufficient to hold that A-5 was associated with A-1 to A-4 in their nefarious activities concerning these fake currency notes. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge was evidently not right in acquitting A-5. The evidence of P.W.8 of course, as characterised by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, appears to be artificial and we also are not inclined to attach much importance to the same. The offences held proved against A-5 would be under sections 120-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. The principle laid down in the decision reported in Bur Sing v. Emperor1 would not be applicable because finding of M.Os.8 and 34 is not the only circumstances appearing against A-5. 66. A-7 was arrested near Meenakshi Lodge in Madurai on 18th December, 1966. The prosecution case is that he had a plastic bag M.O.35 in which metallic numerical types M.O.11 series were found. They were seized under mahazar Exhibit P-86. P.W.73 Kandaswamy is the mahazardar. He has sworn to these facts. There can be no doubt that M.O.11 series were found in the possession of A-7. A-7 himself has taken P.W.108 and panchas to P.W.3 Mohan and pointed him out in connection with the preparation of M.O.11 series. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved P.W.3 1. A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 24. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 344 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and while doing so has ignored this aspect of the matter, viz., A-7 himself pointing out P.W.3 Mohan in connection with the preparation of M.O.11 series. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved P.W.3 1. A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 24. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 344 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and while doing so has ignored this aspect of the matter, viz., A-7 himself pointing out P.W.3 Mohan in connection with the preparation of M.O.11 series. Admittedly P.W.3 is a manufacturer of such types. His evidence is that A-7 had approached him and told him that he wanted metallic numerical types similar to the numbers appearing on Re. 1 currency note and placed orders for the same. He has gone on to swear that M.O.11 series was prepared by him for A-7 and delivered by him to A-7. The defence contended that M.O.11 series are common place articles bearing no identification marks and, therefore, P.W.3 cannot be believed. It was also contended that P.W.3 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has differences with his elder brother and A-7 was on good terms with that elder brother and, therefore, it will have to be held that P.W.3 has stated falsely against A-7. 67. It would be too much, in our opinion to contend that P.W.3 could not at all identify M.O.11 series. P.W.3 is an artisan. It is a well-known fact that an artisan would be able to identify his handy-work though no identification marks are put there. Same is the view expressed by this Court in In re Govinda Reddy1. The fact that A-7 himself took the police and the panchas and pointed out P.W.3, satisfactorily establishes that P.W.3 could not have come forward to depose falsely. P.W.3 has nowhere admitted that because A-7 was or. good terms with his elder brother, he was not liking A-7. All that P.W.3 has stated is that A-7 was a friend of his elder brother and he (P.W.3) had differences with his elder brother. It is too much to infer from these admissions that all was not well between P.W.3 and A-7. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge has failed to grasp this fact in the evidence of P.W.3 and has unduly rejected the evidence. The evidence of P.W.3 establishes that A-7 placed orders for preparation of M.O.11 series and while placing orders, he was very particular that the numbers should be the ones capable of producing imprints of numbers found on Re. 1 currency note. That is a significant fact. The evidence of P.W.3 establishes that A-7 placed orders for preparation of M.O.11 series and while placing orders, he was very particular that the numbers should be the ones capable of producing imprints of numbers found on Re. 1 currency note. That is a significant fact. Such numbers are found in the possession of A-7. Moreover, as already pointed out, the evidence of P.Ws.30 and 31 shows that he was along with A-3 and A-5 to negotiate the purchase of the press M.O.14, from P.W.31. P.W.31 has sworn that before purchasing the press M.O.14, A-7 operated the same. That fact discloses that A-7 was conversant with the operating of a press. P.W.103 has sworn that M.O.11 series would produce the imprints of numbers found on the fake notes of Rs. 2 denomination in this case. That leads to an inference that there is every possibility of M.O.11 series having been used along with the blocks M.Os.1 to 6 in bringing cut the fake currency notes of Rs. 2 denomination. 68. In this connection it is worthwhile taking note of the fact that the address of A-7 was found in the small note book Exhibit P-36 which was seized from the person of A-4 during the raid. Neither A-7 nor A-4 has put forward any explanation on this point. In the result, we are satisfied that M.O.11 series-the metallic numerical types-are materials used for forging currency notes and that A-7 was closely associated with A-1 to A-5 in this connection, and hold that the prosecution has satisfactorily established offences punishable under sections 120-B and 489-B of the Indian Penal Code against A-7 also. 69. The prosecution has adduced evidence in regard to the movement of these different accused persons somewhere in April/May, 1966. We consider it unnecessary to address ourselves to that evidence because the prosecution has been unable to connect that period with any of the offerees in question. 70. We feel that before parting with this case we should express that the investigation has been done by P.W.108 V. Subrahmanya Iyer very ably and quite satisfactorily almost single handed. He has, at no stage in the investigation, exhibited undue enthusiasm and attempted to paid up investigation though opportunities were available. He has exhibited sobriety, patience and tact and has refrained from being impetuous during the investigation. Even while lay in 1. A.I.R. 1958 Mys. 150. He has, at no stage in the investigation, exhibited undue enthusiasm and attempted to paid up investigation though opportunities were available. He has exhibited sobriety, patience and tact and has refrained from being impetuous during the investigation. Even while lay in 1. A.I.R. 1958 Mys. 150. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1972) 1 M.L.J. 321 at page 345 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the trap, he has abided his time in order to go to the source and unearth the counterfeiting racket along with the instruments and materials concerned. We are of the opinion that the investigation could not have been bettered. 71. We, therefore, hold that Criminal Appeals Nos. 111, 112, 122 and 123 of 1969 are liable to be dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1969 is entitled to succeed as against A-5 Ramachandran and A-7 Ramanujam only. It is liable to be dismissed against the remaining respondents therein. We hold that A-5 Ramachandran is guilty of the offences punishable under sections 120-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and A-7 Ramanujam is guilty of the offences punishable under sections 120-B and 489-D of the Indian Penal Code. 72. In the result, Criminal Appeals Nos. 111, 112, 122 and 123 of 1969 filed by A-1, T.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, A-2, A. S. Subramanyam, A-3, R.V. Ramu and A-4 Y.R. Nagaraja Gupta respectively, are dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1969 filed by the State is allowed as against A-5 Ramachandran (respondent) and A-7 Ramanujam (respondent) and their acquittal is set aside. 73. With regard to the sentence that has to be passed on accused-5 and accused-7, we have to bear in mind that we are setting aside their acquittal after nearly 2½ years. The evidence also discloses that they have not taken an equally prominent part as accused-1 to 4 in the conspiracy and the sale of materials for counter feiting currency notes. Hence, we are of opinion that no deterrent sentence is called for in their case. While on this question of sentence, we may also point out that the learned Sessions Judge should have passed separate sentence for criminal conspiracy as mere agreement to commit an offence is a separate offence punishable under section 120-B Indian Penal Code. He should have passed separate sentences for criminal conspiracy and the other offences made out under sections 489-C and 489-D Indian Penal Code. He should have passed separate sentences for criminal conspiracy and the other offences made out under sections 489-C and 489-D Indian Penal Code. After passing separate sentences, he could have directed the sentences to run concurrently. 74. A-5 Ramachandran is convicted of an offence under section 120-B Indian penal Code and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. He is also convicted of an offence under section 489-C Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. 75. A-7 Ramanujam is convicted of an offence under section 120-B Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. He is also convicted of the offence under section 489-D Indian Pernal Code and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. 76. Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1969 is dismissed as against the remaining respondents therein. S.V.S. ----- Crl. Appeals against conviction dismissed; Appeal against acquittal No. 379 allowed against A-5 and A-7 only and dismissed against therest.