2004 Supreme(SC) 1426

2004(8) Supreme 579
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
K. Hasim -Appellant
versus
State of Tamil Nadu -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2004
With
Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 2004
Decided on 17-11-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in Crl.A.No : 185/2004 : B. Mohan, Vipin Nair, P.B. Suresh and K. Rajeev, Advocates.
For the Appellant in Crl.A.No. 187/2004 : T. Harish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sidharth Dave, Abhay Kumar, R. Gopal Krishnan and Subramonium Prasad, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 489C, IPC is not restricted to Indian currency note alone but it includes dollar also and it applies to American dollar bills.

Headnote:(i) Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 133 and 114-Accomplice-Conviction based on evidence of an accomplice-Requirement of corroboration-Section 133 has to be read along with Sec. 114, illustration (b)-Necessity of corroboration is a matter of prudence except when it is safe to dispense with such corroboration-Evidence of approver must be shown to be of a reliable witness-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 489A, 489C, 489D, 120B.

       Held : Section 133 of the Evidence Act is also of significance. It relates to the evidence of an accomplice. In positive terms it provides that the conviction based on the evidence of an accomplice is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, because the accomplice is a competent witness. (Para 24)

       Section 133 of the Evidence Act expressly provides that an accomplice is a competent witness and the conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In other words, this section renders admissible such uncorroborated testimony. But this Section has to be read along with Section 114, illustration (b). The latter section empowers the Court to presume the existence of certain facts and the illustration elucidates what the Court may presume and makes clear by means of examples as to what facts the Court shall have regard in considering whether or not maxims illustrated apply to a given case. Illustration (b) in express terms says that accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. The Statute permits the conviction of an accused on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but the rule of prudence embodied in illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act strikes a note of warning cautioning the Court that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be believed unless corroborated in material particulars. In other words, the rule is that the necessity of corroboration is a matter of prudence except when it is safe to dispense with such corroboration must be clearly present in the mind of the Judge. (Para 26)

       Although Section 114 illustration (b) provides that the Court may presume that the evidence of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated, "may" is not must and no decision of Court can make it must. The Court is not obliged to hold that he is unworthy of credit. It ultimately depends upon the Court s view as to the credibility of evidence tendered by an accomplice. (Para 27)

       All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it. Secondly, the independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular the testimony of the accomplice or complainant that the accused committed the crime. This does not meant that the corroboration as to identify must extend to all the circumstances necessary to identify the accused with the offence. Again, all that is necessary is that there would be independent evidence which will make it reasonably safe to believe the witness s story that the accused was the one, or among those, who committed the offence. (Paras 38 and 39)

       Thirdly, the corroboration must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a conviction so based would not be illegal. I say this because it was contended that the mother in this case was not an independent source. Fourthly, the corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. Were it otherwise "many crimes which are usually committed between accomplices in secret, such as incest, offences with females (or unnatural offences) could never be brought to justice". (Paras 40 and 41)

       Judged on the background of the legal position as stated above the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant rejection for their evidence is not really uncorroborated as is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants. The evidence of PWs 8 and 19 clearly provides the materials. As noted above, even circumstantial evidence can provide the corroboration. In the instant case, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 therefore clearly meets the requirements of Section 114(b) in the background of Section 133 of the Evidence Act. (Para 42)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120B rw/s 489A, 489C, 489D and 28-Counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes-Counterfeiting of US currency-Recovery of bundles of counterfeit US dollars of 20 denomination during raid conducted at the house of A1 and A4-On basis of confessional statement obtained from A1, recoveries made from possession of other accused-Recovery of printing inks in green, yellow, light green and light yellow colours and printing blocks-Two of the accused persons turned approvers-Four accused convicted u/s 489C, IPC-High Court upheld their convictions u/s 120B rw/s 489A, 489C and 489D of the Code-Whether conviction of appellants based on evidence of approvers was sustainable-(Yes).

       Held : Sections 489A to 489E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. The object of legislature in enacting these provisions is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency notes and bank notes. Section 489A not only deals with complete act of counterfeiting but also covers the case where the accused performs any part of the process of counterfeiting. Therefore, if the material shows that the accused knowingly performed any part of the process of counterfeiting, Section 489A becomes applicable. Similarly Section 489B relates to using as genuine forged or counterfeited currency notes or bank notes. The object of Legislature in enacting this section is to stop the circulation of forged notes by punishing all persons who knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged do any act which could lead to their circulation. Section 489C deals with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeited currency notes or bank notes punishable. Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeited notes are necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Section 489C and 489D. As was observed by this Court in State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 33) the expression currency notes is large and wide enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of any country. Section 489C is not restricted to Indian currency note alone but it includes dollar also and it applies to American dollar bills. The wording of Section 489D is very wide and would clearly cover a case where a person is found in possession of machinery, instrument or materials for the purpose of being used for counterfeiting currency notes, even though the machinery, instruments or materials so found were not all the materials particular required for the purpose of counterfeiting. (Paras 45 to 49)

       "Counterfeit" in Section 28 does not connote an exact reproduction of the original counterfeited. The Explanation 2 of Section 28 is of great significance. It lays down a rebuttable presumption where resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby. In such a case the intention or the knowledge is presumed unless contrary is proved. In view of the credible, cogent and reliable evidence tendered, the inevitable conclusion is that the appellants have been rightly convicted under Section 120B read with Sections 489A, 489C and 489D, IPC and separately under Section 489C of the Code. The sentences as imposed do not warrant interference, particularly in view of the object for which these provisions have been enacted. (Paras 52 & 53)