S.D.ANAND, J. - (1.) - The appellants were prosecuted on charges under Sections 231, 232, 233, 234 and 235 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellants earned acquittal under Sections 231, 233 and 234 IPC. However, both of them were convicted for the offences under Section 232 and 235 IPC.
(2.) THE prosecution allegation upheld, at the trial, was that the appellants were apprehended by the police party while they were in the process of preparing counterfeit coins and they were further found in possession of counterfeit coins worth Rs. 45/-. The police party which acted on the basis of a secret information, took the entire apparatus into possession. Learned counsel for the appellants argues, at the very out set, that a perusal of expert testimony of PW -1 Hans Raj Aggarwal is adequate enough to invalidate the prosecution plea. In support of the averment, reliance is placed upon Shahid Sultan Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, 2007(4) RCR(Criminal) 847 (Bombay).
(3.) PW -1 is Hans Raj Aggarwal, Assistant Director, F.S.L., Madhuban, who had examined the allegedly counterfeit coins and given report Ex. PA. It is in his examination-in-chief itself that "the coins Ex. A1 to Ex. A55 and B1 to B5 were copies of the original coins but having many defects in respect of their metal, diameter shape of edges and many defects. If these are used as coins, visibly with so many defects, they cannot be considered as coins." In the course of cross-examination, he conceded as correct a suggestion that "if coins Ex. A1 to Ex. A55 and B1 to Ex. B5 if one is used in open market, it cannot be used as original coins because they were having many visible defects in the present condition.";