ANOOKOOL CHUNDER NUNDY Vs. QUEEN-EMPRESS
LAWS(PVC)-1900-2-30
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on February 21,1900

ANOOKOOL CHUNDER NUNDY Appellant
VERSUS
QUEEN-EMPRESS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Macpherson and Hill, JJ - (1.) The appellant has been convicted under Section 485 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code of having in his possession, (a.) instruments for the purpose of counterfeiting the trade or property mark of the Mercantile Bank of India, Limited; (6) for sale or trade a gold bar bearing a counterfeit impression of the trade or property mark of that Bank.
(2.) It appears that, on the 14 August, the appellant's shop was searched under a search warrant issued at the instance of the Sub-Manager of the National Bank of India, who had deposed that gold bars were in circulation bearing a counterfeit of the impression on the gold bars imported by his Bank, and that the appellant was suspected of being concerned in this. Nothing was found indicating the commission of any offence in connection with the mark of that Bank, but there was found a bar of gold (Exhibit G) stamped with the words Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China, in the English and Guzrati character, and other words denoting the touch of gold and the names of the London Bullion Brokers: also a stamp or die (Exhibit B) which made an impression similar to the impression on Exhibit G. Mr. Fidler, the Manager of the Calcutta Branch of the Mercantile Bank of India, Limited, who was a witness for the prosecution, deposed that the mark on Exhibit G was a counterfeit of the mark on the gold bars imported by his Bank. No one else claimed any interest in that mark. On the 7 November, after all the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined, the appellant was charged under the sections cited with having in his possession instruments for counterfeiting the trade or property-mark of the National Bank of India, Limited, and also a gold bar bearing a counterfeit impression of the trade or property-mark of that Bank. The witnesses for the prosecution were recalled and cross-examined and on the 12 December, after the cross-examination had been concluded, it was discovered that there was what the Magistrate calls a clerical error in the charges, and that the National Bank of India, Limited, had by mistake been inserted for the Mercantile Bank of India, Limited. New charges were then framed with the corrections necessary to meet that mistake. Mr. Fidler was recalled and examined as a witness for the defence, and on 15 December the appellant was convicted on those charges.
(3.) It is contended on those facts that there has been no proper trial, and that the conviction is bad on that ground. It must be conceded that the original charges were most carelessly drawn, but there is no reasonable ground for supposing that the appellant was misled by them. The prosecution was based upon the finding of the articles, Exhibits G and B, in his possession; no one ever suggested that any instrument for counterfeiting the mark of the National Bank of India was found in his possession, and Mr. Fidler's evidence went to show that Exhibit G was a counterfeit of the mark, impressed on the gold bars imported by his Bank.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.