- (1.) The appellant, Gangadharan Asari, a goldsmith, has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Quilon of offences punishable under S.232, 235 and 240 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three several terms of imprisonment and three separate fines, with the direction that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The offence under S.232 relates to counterfeiting Indian coin, that under S.235 to possession of instrument or material for the purpose of using the same for counterfeiting Indian coin and that under S.240 to delivery of Indian coin, possessed with knowledge that it is counterfeit. Besides these three offences the charge against the appellant embraced commission of offences punishable under S.234 and 243 as well, but the learned Judge found that there was no proof of the offence under S.234 and that inasmuch as the appellant was found guilty under S.240 there was no need to enter a separate conviction under S.243. S.243 relates to possession of Indian coin by person who knew it to be counterfeit when he became possessed thereof. S.234 dealt with making or selling instrument for counterfeiting Indian coin. Of the three offences for which the appellant has been found guilty he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- for that under S.232, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 25/- for that under S.235 and rigorous imprisonment for the same period and fine in the same amount for that under S.240. In default of payment of fine for the first named offence the appellant is to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month and in default of payment of the other two fines similar imprisonment for 15 days each. Before us in the appeal the appellant was not represented by counsel and after a careful perusal of the records we have come to the conclusion that there is no need to interfere with the convictions though some modification in the sentences would appear to be called for.
(2.) A brief resume of the prosecution case is to be found in the opening paragraph of the lower courts judgment and the relevant portion thereof may with advantage be quoted here:- On receipt of Ext. P5 report of PW 12, a P.C. attached to the crime squad working under the Circle Inspector of Police, Quilon, to the effect that the accused was engaged in counterfeiting coins, PW 16, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara at about 4.30 p.m. on 9.2.1956 made a search of Thoravil house, Kallada, in which the accused with his wife PW 1 was residing and recovered from there in the presence of PW 3 and others M.Os. I to XI. M.O. I is a mould in two pieces for casting Indian one rupee coins of the 1944 series and M.O. I(a) is a mould in two pieces for casting Indian one rupee coins of 1945 series. M.O. II is a mould in two pieces for casting Indian half rupee coins of 1950 series. M.O. III are two pieces of white lead and M.O. IV are two pieces of antimony. M.O. V is a plate of an alloy of white lead and antimony. M.O. VI is a pair of punches. MO VII is a file. M.O. VIII is an iron lamp (Im¡hnf¡v) which could be used for melting metals like white lead and antimony. M.O. IX are seventeen Indian one rupee counterfeit coins of 1945 series & M.O. X is a torch light inside the tube of which were kept M.O. IX coins. M.O. IX is a pair of tongs. M.O. X torch light with M.O. IX coins inside was taken by PW 16 during the course of the search from a wall on which it was hung and the other M.O.S. were taken by the accused himself from the midst of the pots placed by the side of the western wall of the western verandah (Nmbv]v) of the house where they were hidden in two packets, and produced before PW 16. Ext. P1 search list was also prepared by PW 16 in the presence of the accused, his wife, PW 1 and several others and got it attested by PW 3 and two other independent witnesses. The accused was arrested and taken to custody forthwith. On further investigation it was revealed that the accused had tried to utter counterfeit one rupee coins like M.O. IX. M.O. XII is one of such coins produced before PW 16 by PW 9, an assistant in a toddy shop which the accused used to visit. PW 4, PW 5 and PW 8 are proprietors of tea shops in which the accused tried to change similar counterfeit coins and PW 11 is a vendor of beedi and chew whom also the accused tried to defraud by offering a counterfeit one rupee coin for the purchases made by the latter. PW 6 is the agent of a chitty foreman who was offered seven counterfeit one rupee coins by the accused for the chitty subscription due from him. PW 2 is close neighbour of the accused who has seen him engaged in making counterfeit coins.
(3.) The offences for which the appellant has been convicted are as noticed above; possession of instrument or material for the purpose of using the same for counterfeiting Indian coin (S.235), counterfeiting Indian coin (S.232) and delivery of Indian coin, possession with knowledge that it is counterfeit (S.240). The main item of evidence in the case is that furnished by search conducted by PW 16 at the appellants residence when M.O. Nos. I to XI were recovered. Of these material objects the evidence of PW 10, Coin and Currency Expert of the Government of Travancore-Cochin and the report he furnished (Ext. P3) go to show that M.Os. I to VIII and XI are instruments and materials for counterfeiting Indian coin. The search and the recovery of these articles have been proved by the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 12 and 16 and the lower court has chosen to believe all those witnesses particularly PW 1, the wife of the appellant. The evidence of PW 16 shows that these nine articles were kept hidden in two packets by the side of the western wall of the western verandah of the appellants house and they were taken from there by the appellant himself and produced before PW 16. As pointed by the lower court the collection of some of these instruments and other materials by the appellant more or less indicates the purpose for which they were collected and kept. The further evidence in the case regarding actual counterfeiting which will presently be referred to strengthen that inference. The evidence of PW 1 is decisive of the point as to possession and the purpose for which they were kept. The learned Judge was therefore perfectly right in entering a conviction against the appellant under S.235 I.P.C.;