( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-accused against the judgment of the larned Sessions Judge, Mercara, in criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1955, confirming that of the learned munsiff and First Class Magistrate, Mercara, in C. C. No. 296 of 1954 convicting him of an offence under Section 243 I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

( 2 ) THE facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows : the accused was charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 243 I. P. C. in the Court of the learned Munsiff and First Class magistrate, Mercara, and the case for the prosecution was that on 23-11-1953 the accused was found in fraudulent possession of four counterfeit India Government Rupee coins of 1947 pattern having known at the time he became possessed of them that they were counterfeit and that he thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 243 I. P. C. The accused pleaded not guilty to a charge framed under the above section but the learned Magistrate ultimately convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. As against that judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Mercara, who confirmed the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him by the trial Court. As against that decision, this revision petition is filed.

( 3 ) THE main point that arises for consideration is whether the guilt has been brought home to the petitioner. Though both the courts below have concurrently found that the accused is guilty, yet I am constrained to observe that the conviction cannot be sustained inasmuch as it is based on evidence which is very meagre and inconclusive. The offence relates to coins which form the currency of the land, and Section 243 I. P. C. provides a substantive sentence of seven years as punishment for this offence. Thus it is seen that the charge brought against the petitioner is a serious one and in such cases Courts should expect a higher degree of proof in support of the case for the prosecution.

( 4 ) TO sustain a conviction under Section 248 I. P. C. the prosecution should establish firstly that the accused was in possession of coins ; secondly that the said coins were counterfeit coins ; thirdly that the accused was in possession with intent to defraud ; and fourthly that the accused, at the time he became possessed of them, knew that they were counterfeit.

( 5 ) FROM a perusal of the evidence, I am of opinion that the first two ingredients have been established but not the other more important ingredients, viz. , ingredients Nos. 3 and 4. The four coins in question are marked as M. O. 1 in this case. That they are counterfeit coins is proved by the evidence of P. W. 8 the Coins and Currency Expert. Ext. P-6 is his report. He has assigned four reasons for coming to the conclusion that M. O. 1 are counterfeit coins, they being : (1) that M. O. 1 coins are cast coins and that all cast coins are counterfeit coins ; (2) that M. O. 1 coins are not attracted by magnet whereas the genuine coins of the year 1947 are attracted ; (3) that the milling and securing groves on the edges of these coins are crude and irregular ; and (4) that these coins are lighter in weight than the genuine coins.

( 6 ) IN view of the evidence of P. W. 8 and also the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 7 who had actually seen the coins and also in view of the circumstance that fche above fact is not disputed on the side of the defence, I think the Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that M. . O. 1 coins are counterfeit coins.

( 7 ) IT is P. W. 1 who actually seized M. . O. 1 from fche possession of the accused under the mahazar Ext. P-1. This is sworn to by P. W. 1 and the mahazar witnesses. Further the fact of seizure is not disputed by fche accused. As a matter of fact, he has admitted his having bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document