Judgement

Imam J.: These three appeals are by special leave against the decision of the High Court of Madras. The appellants were tried for the offence of conspiracy to cheat members of the public and for specific offences of cheating in pursuance of that conspiracy. The Additional Sessions Judge to Tirunelveli acquitted appellant Swamirathnam of all the charges framed against him. He convicted the appellants Abbas and Abu Bucker of the offence of conspiracy. Abbas was convicted by him with respect to the charges framed against him concerning the offence of cheating P.W.47.Krishnaswami Naicker. He, however, acquitted Abu Bucker with respect to all the charges concerning specific offences of cheating framed against him. Appeals were filed in the High Court by the convicted persons and by the Government against the acquittal of Swamirathnam and Abu Bucker. It is unnecessary in the present case, to mention the names of other accused, who were convicted or acquitted by the Sessions Judge, as their cases are not before us. The High Court set aside the acquittal of Swamirathnam and convicted him for the offence of conspiracy and the offence of cheating Ramaswami Mudaliar, P.W. 91, who was examined at the trial as an approver. It also set aside the acquittal of Abu Bucker of the offence of cheating under charge No. 11 and convicted him of that offence.

2. Both the courts below, relying on the oral and documentary evidence in the case, held it as a fact that there had been a conspiracy during the years 1945-48 to cheat members of the public between some of the accused and the approvers Ramaswami Mudaliar and Vellayam Pillai examined as P.W. 91 and 61 respectively. The method adopted for cheating was to persuade such members of the public, as could be persuaded, to part with their money to purchase counterfeit Rs. 5 currency notes at half their face value and after having obtained their money to decamp with it. When a member of the public handed over his money, at a certain stage, one of the conspirators pretending to be a Police Officer would arrest the man who had the box containing their money and take him away with the box. The victim was thus deprived of his money without even having a single counterfeit currency note in his possession in exchange of the genuine money paid by him. We have scrutinized with care the judgments of the Sessions Judge and the learned Judge of the High Court and find that they were amply justified, having regard to the state of the evidence on the record in coming to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution concerning the existence of the conspiracy as charged to cheat the members of the public, had been proved. We are unable to find any special circumstance, arising from the evidence on the record, which would justify our interference with the finding of fact arrived at by the courts below. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming and convincing to prove the case of the prosecution that there had been a conspiracy in the relevant years to cheat the members of the public between some of the accused and the aforesaid approvers.

3. The substantial question for consideration in these appeals is whether it has been proved that the appellants were members of the above-mentioned conspiracy and whether they are guilty of the specific charges of cheating in pursuance of that conspiracy. In order to determine this, it is desirable that the cases of the appellants be considered separately.

4. So far as the appellant Abbas is concerned, both the courts below found him guilty of the offence of conspiracy and the specific offence of cheating Krishnaswami Naicker, P.W. 47. The charge of cheating Krishnaswami Naicker is charge No. 11. Krishnaswami Naicker has been believed by both the trial Court and the Appellate Court and his evidence was corroborated by several prosecution witnesses including the approver Ramaswami Mudaliar, P. W. 91. Appreciation of evidence is primarily for the courts of fact and we can find no