STATE OF MYSORE v. STHAPATHI NATARAJAN — 1971 DIGILAW 92 (KAR)

HONNIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of respondents (Accused 1 to 4 in the trial Court) of the offences under Ss. 489a, 489b and 489c read with S. 120b IPC. A-1 was a resident of Uttarakosamangai in ramnad District, A-2 was a resident of Velur Satrapatti in Dindigai taluk, and A-3 was a resident of Salem all belonging to Tamil Nadu. A-4 was a Matadipathi of Kudali Sringeri Mutt, in the District of Shimoga- after the appeal was filed, the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted, the 4th respondent died. Therefore, we are not concerned in this appeal with the case against A-4. ( 2 ) THE case for the prosecution, briefly stated is that between 21-3- 1965 and 22-2-1966 all the four accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10 and for that purpose they adopted various means and in fact ultimately they counterfeited large number of currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10. Under these circumstances, the prosecution alleged that they had committed offences under Ss. 120b. 489a, 489b and 489c IPC. All these four accused were tried by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who, by his judgment dated 31-3-1969, acquitted all of them holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of conspiracy, much less the charges under Ss. 489a, 489b and 489c IPC. ( 3 ) AS regards the case against the accused that they conspired, during the period stated above, to counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10 the only evidence placed on record is that of PWs. 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17. All these witnesses no doubt have stated the various parts taken by each of the accused in order to achieve their object. The learned Sessions Judge, after scrutinising the evidence carefully, was of the view that they were accomplices and in the absence of any independent corroboration to support their version, it was not desirable to rely upon the testimony of the accomplices and in that view he disbelieved all these witnesses. We have gone through the evidence of these witnesses and we have no doubt that the conclusion reached by the learned sessions Judge is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the law on the point. We have gone through the evidence of these witnesses and we have no doubt that the conclusion reached by the learned sessions Judge is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the law on the point. ( 4 ) SO far as the case against A-2 and A-3 is concerned, the only evidence relied upon by the prosecution is that at a particular point of time during the relevant period they were occupying a room in the bungalow called "sachidananda Prasad" belonging to A-4 at Bangalore near lalbagh, a portion of which was used as a printing press. There is no evidence worth the name that the printing press was made use of for the purpose, namely manufacturing counterfeit currency notes. But, however, the learned State Public Prosecutor relied upon one circumstance that from the room A-2 and A-3 had occupied certain currency notes were recovered and that according to the opinion of the Expert, they were found to be forged notes. ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true, there is -the evidence of one Subba Bhatta (PW. 11), who was the manager of the press, which establishes that A-2 and A-3 were occupying the room in question and from that room some forged currency notes were recovered" by" the Police. But at the time when the notes were recovered, it is in the evidence of the Police Officer as well as PW 11 Subba Bhatt that A-2 and A-3 were not present. In these circumstances, recovery of certain forged notes from a room which had been previously occupied by A-2 and A-3, it cannot be said that they either counterfeited the notes or they were in possession of those notes. The learned State Public Prosecutor did not seriously dispute the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge, rightly, that A-2 and A-3 had not committed any offence with wnich they were charged. Although A-4 is dead, the evidence so far as A-4 is concerned, is also simlar to the evidence aganst A-2 and A-3 and therefore the acquittal of A-4 cannot, in our opinion, be said to be wrong. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the State Public Prosecutor strenuously urged that the evidence against A-l that he was found in possession of 4508 forged notes of the denomination of Rs. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the State Public Prosecutor strenuously urged that the evidence against A-l that he was found in possession of 4508 forged notes of the denomination of Rs. 10 is conclusive and that the learned sessions-Judge was wholly wrong in acquitting him of the offence punishable under S. 489-C of IPC or. the ground that they were not counterfeit currency notes. S. 489-C reads as follows:"whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency note or banknote, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. "section 28 of IPC. defines the expression "counterfeit" m the following terms:"a person is said to "counterfeit" who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised. Explanation: 1. It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact. Explanation: 2. When a person causes on thing to resemble another thing, and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practised. "under this section it is not necessary to show that deception actually took place. Intention to practice deception bv causing one thing to resemble another is quite sufficient It is clear from a reading of the section that the word 'counterfeit' does not connote an exact reproduction of the criminal counterfeited The difference between the counterfeit and the criminal is not therefore limited to a difference existing only by reason of frulty reproduction. There can be counterfeiting even though the imitation is not exact and though there are differences in detail between the original and the imitation so long as the resemblance is so close that deception may thereby be practised. Reliance was placed on the evidence of PW. 14. There can be counterfeiting even though the imitation is not exact and though there are differences in detail between the original and the imitation so long as the resemblance is so close that deception may thereby be practised. Reliance was placed on the evidence of PW. 14. Hanumanth Devsingh Nandedkar, who was then the Inspecter of Police at Basavansudi, P. W. 13 K. M. Linram, owner of an Engineering firm in Bangalore and P. W. 9 Claude D'souza, Supervisor and expert in detection of for Currency and Bank-notes, who was working in the Indian Security Press at Nasik. The evidence of PWs. 13 and 14, conclusively and positively establishes that on 22-2-66 at about 5-30 P. M. currency noter of the denomination of Rs. 10 numbering 4508 (marked as M. O. 1) were seized from the possession of A-1. ( 7 ) THE next question is whether these notes were forged notes or counterfeit notes. On this question we have, the evidence of the Expert, p. W. 9 Claude D'souza, He examined the notss in question and submitted his report Ex. P-3 giving reasons and according to him these notes were forced notes but they did not bear any number. He has given several reasons to come to the conclusion that these notes were forged. He has stated that it was possible to pass off these notes as genuine ones in dimlight and also in bundles. We are of the view that the evidence of P. Ws. 13 and 14 taken along with the evidence of P. W. 9 conclusively establishes that A-1 was found in possession of forged or counterfeit notes numbering 4508. The learned Sessions Judge, in spite of the conclusive evidence of P. Ws. 13 and 14, was in error in coming to the conclusion that the seizure of these notes from A-1 had not been proved although A-1 himself admits that at the relevent time he was present and some articles at least were seized from him under Ex. The learned Sessions Judge, in spite of the conclusive evidence of P. Ws. 13 and 14, was in error in coming to the conclusion that the seizure of these notes from A-1 had not been proved although A-1 himself admits that at the relevent time he was present and some articles at least were seized from him under Ex. P-16 The approach of the learned sessions Judge in discarding the evidence of these witnesses is far from satisfaction If he had really applied his mind properly and examined the evidence in the normal course, he would not have come to the conclusion that he has now arrived at Agam we have got to observe here that the learned Sessions Judge as wholly wrong, in spite of the evidence of PW. 9 who is an expert on this point, in holding that the notes in question are not counterfeit notes. He anpcars to have not applied his rained to the provisions of S. 28 much less the provisions of S. 463 and 489-C of IPC The prosecution in this case has placed verv satisfactory and conclusive evidence that A-1 was found in possession of notes, either counterfeit or forced ones, and that they were seized on 22-2-1966 under ex. P-46 by P. W. 14 in the presence of P. W. 13. ( 8 ) THIS takes us to the question whether A-1 possessed these notes knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine. Under S. 489-C the onus lies on the prosecution to prove circumstances which lead clearly, indubitably and irresistibly to the Inference that the accused had an intention to foist the currency notes on the public. The prosecution must, therefore, call relevant evidence to lay foundation for a presumption to be drawn that the accused was in possession of the notes knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine. On the facts of this case, it has got to be said affirmatively that the prosecution have discharged their burden for more than one reason. On the facts of this case, it has got to be said affirmatively that the prosecution have discharged their burden for more than one reason. To recapitulate, the accused (A-1) was sitting on a bench with a bundle tied in a towel, in which there was dealwood box, which contained 4508 currency notes of 10 rupees denomination. These notes were proved to be forged notes Tn the circumstances, therefore, in the absence of any reasonable explanation tendered by the accused, this case must give rise to the presumption that possession of such notes was for trafficking in currency notes. That presumption, no doubt, is a presumption of fact, which can be drawn from the circumstances of the case. The fact that A-1 was found in possession of such large number of notes leads to the inevitable inference that he intended to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine. This view of ours is supported by two decisions, one of Madras and another of Andhra Pradesh High Courts. ( 9 ) IN Public Prosecutor v. Rowthula Kondanda Rao, AIR. 1939 Mad. 96, the accused was found in possession of 38 counterfeit ten rupee currency notes, 30 of which had been tied up in a piece of cloth worn by him on his person and the remaining 8 were produced by him from a box in his house soon afterwards on being questioned by the Police. A mere look at those notes revealed that every one must have known them to be counterfeit ones. Dealing with the question whether possession of such notes was punishable under S. 489-C IPC. , this is what the Court observed:"the number of counterfeit notes found in a man's possession and the circumstances in which they were so found may by themselves constitute a sufficient ground for drawing the inference that the intention was to use them as genuine or that they may be used as genuine. "and in that view of the matter, the learned Judge set aside the judgment of acquittal and convicted the accused. This view has been followed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in re Satyanarayana, (1961) 1 Cr. L. J. 617 (AP. ). In that case, the accused was found to have thirty counterfeit currency notes, all of the same type. This view has been followed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in re Satyanarayana, (1961) 1 Cr. L. J. 617 (AP. ). In that case, the accused was found to have thirty counterfeit currency notes, all of the same type. He had kept them safely locked in a steel trunk in his house with the key in his possession and had produced them before the police in pursuance of his statement to the Police. When confronted with the large body of evidence about his possession, he denied having made the statement and produced the notes without any explanation whatsoever about his possession of the same. On the said facts it was held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused must have known or at least must have had reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit and also had the intention of using the counterfeit currency notes as genuine or that they might be used as genuine. Similar view has been taken by the former Mysore High Court in re Ameerjan, AIR. 1951 Mys. 34. ( 10 ) THE story of the accused obviously being untrue and having regard to the conclusive nature of the evidencc adduced by the prosecution regarding possession of large number of notes, numbering 4508, it is really impossible to conceive of any other intention than the intention of using the notes as genuine or that they may be used as genuine, and no other intention can even be suggested. In Ameerjan's case referred to above, their Lordships were dealing with a similar case and in that case they have extracted a portion of the decision of the Lahore High Court in sher Mohomed v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Lab. 27. The relevant part of the said extract is quoted below:"the true position is that it is for the Court in each case to draw any such inference as may be legitimate or reasonable in the circumstances. The question what inference from a relevant fact may be drawn as to the existenre or otherwise of a fact in issue and with what degree of certainty is in each case a matter for the Judge to determine on the facts of that case and cannot be regulated by a generalization. The question what inference from a relevant fact may be drawn as to the existenre or otherwise of a fact in issue and with what degree of certainty is in each case a matter for the Judge to determine on the facts of that case and cannot be regulated by a generalization. The outstanding fact in such cases is that the discovery of the incriminating article from a place which is hidden from public view but is pointed out by the accused unmistakably shows that the accused was in some way privy to the felony. " ( 11 ) ON examining the entire evidence we arc satisfied that the prosecution have proved satisfactorily bevond reasonable doubt that A-1 has committed an offence punishable under S. 489-C of IPC. The learned trial Judse in our opinion, erred in folling to draw a clear indubitable and irresistible inference from the facts established bv the prosecution. We, therefore, allow this appeal in part and set. aside the judgment of arquittal of A-1 and convict him for an offence under S. 489-C and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. So far as the appeal against A-2 and A-3 is concerned it is dismissed. The appeal against A-4 abates as he is dead. The order regarding the disposal of property made by the learned Sessions Judge stands. --- *** --- .