Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 480 (PAT)

Narayan Kamkar v. State Of Bihar

2001-06-26

SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK

body2001
Judgment SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Arrah on 21.11.1989 and the appellant was convicted under Section 240 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for four years. 2. The case of the prosecution as reported through the written report of the Railway Station Master Chausa, is that on 28.7.1980 the Station Master was in his office. Suddenly one Sri Ram of Chausa came and told that one person came at his shop and gave him two silver coins on which King Edward VII was engraved and both the coins appeared to be counterfeit. The aforesaid person who had given those coins to Sri Ram was still at the shop. So Station Master along with other persons (mentioned in the written report) went to the shop of Sri Ram where the accused appellant started fleeing away. He was caught hold on chase and from his possession 82 coins were recovered from his pocket. Thereafter the accused- appellant was produded before the Officer Incharge, Buxar GRP. A formal FIR was drawn up on the basis of the written report (Exhibit 2). Subsequently, police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet and thus the accused appellant was put on trial. 3. The trial Court convicted the accused appellant on the basis of the evidence of five witnesses PW 5 was a formal witness who brought on records exhibit 2 written report, exhibit 3 formal FIR and the seizure list exhibit 4. PW 4 was Kasinath Prasad who is the son of Sri Ram at whose shop the accused appellant was standing and from there he started fleeing away for safaty and was caught hold of and brought to the police station. PW 3 was tendered. PW 2 was another witness, Ramasis Dubey who went to the shop of Sri Ram along with Station Master to arrest the accused. PW 1 was another witness who had accompanied the Station Master to the shop of Sri Ram. 4. Station Master and Sri Ram were not examined and the police officer who prepared the seizure list was also not examined. 5. Now the point is as to whether the accused was found in possession of counterfeit coins. Coin has been defined in Indian Penal Code in Section 230. 4. Station Master and Sri Ram were not examined and the police officer who prepared the seizure list was also not examined. 5. Now the point is as to whether the accused was found in possession of counterfeit coins. Coin has been defined in Indian Penal Code in Section 230. "Coin is metal used for the time being as money and stamped and issued by the authority of some State of Sovereign Power in order to be so used." 6. Admittedly, coins recovered from the possession of the accused were the coins issued by King Edward VII in the year 1907. So those coins were not circulated as legal tender on the relevant date and time. 7. Counterfeiting coins means imitation of a coin which is used as legal tender that means, money, at the relevant time in order to use the same as a genuine coin. Admittedly at the relevant date and time, coins issued by the King Emperor were not used as money, as legal tender. So there is no question of counterfeiting of this coin as, they were not in circulation as legal tender on the date of the occurrence. If at all the concerned silver coins were passed as silver by the accused and if the same turned out to be not silver and anybody who received the same was defrauded, the offence shall fall under Section 420, IPC. Admitted case of the prosecution was that the accused appellant sold two coins to Sri Ram for Rs. 10/- each. That means that the accused did not use those coins as money (legal tender) for purchasing anything from the shop. So coins which were passed to Sri Ram by the. accused were not used as counterfeit coins or the legal tender on the relevant date and time. The man who was cheated (Sri Ram) was not produced in the Court. So it cannot be said that, of course, accused appellant had cheated anybody by passing those coins as silver. From the possession of the accused appellant no note of Rs. 10/- was recovered. So if at all he had given two silver coins to Sri Ram in lieu of two notes, those notes should also have been recovered from his possession. So it was not proved that the accused-appellant had passed two coins showing them to be silver to Sri Ram in lieu of Rs. 10/- each. 10/- was recovered. So if at all he had given two silver coins to Sri Ram in lieu of two notes, those notes should also have been recovered from his possession. So it was not proved that the accused-appellant had passed two coins showing them to be silver to Sri Ram in lieu of Rs. 10/- each. So the statement of the son of Sri Ram that he was present when the accused person had given two so-called silver coins to his father cannot be believed. So evidence regarding fraud on Sri Ram is neither sufficierit nor convincing. So far other witnesses are concerned, they have stated that they accompanied the Station Master to the shop in order to arrest the accused appellant. However, recovery of so-called silver coins from the possession of the accused itself will not amount to any kind of cheating committed upon Sri Ram by the accused appellant as stated in the written report. Even if the evidence of the witnesses is believed to the effect that the accused was found in possession of so- called silver coins, that will itself not amount to an offence under Section 420, IPC much less Section 240, IPC. Possession of any material in itself cannot amount to any offence. have already stated above that counterfeiting of legal tender on the relevant time has not been substantiated. 8. In the result, I am constrained to hold that the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court and the sentence passed against the appellant is bad in law. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted.