JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, J. - This is a criminal revision from a conviction u/s 251, Indian Penal Code.

2. It appears that on the 24th of May 1925 the two accused Mehtab Rai and Ram Sarup arrived at Moradabad and through the help of a broker Ram Kishen were introduced to Rang Behari Lal the cashier of the Moradabad branch of the Imperial Bank. They showed him some samples of defaced coins and requested him to cash them next day when the Bank would open. Rang Behari Lal was reluctant to accept those coins and said that ho would consult other clerks of the Bank before giving his final opinion. The accused left some coins by way of sample with Rang Behari Lal and promised to return at about 3 p.m. in the afternoon. Rang Behari Lal approached another Officer of the Bank named Manohar Lal who came to the conclusion that the coins could not be taken by the Bank. The police were informed and some police officers came and concealed themselves in the house of Rang Behari Lal and lay in wait for the arrival of the accused. At about the appointed time the accused arrived with bags full of coins about Rs. 2,000 in face value. Rang Behari Lal, after examining the coins expressed his willingness to accept about 300 one-rupee pieces and 100 eight-anna pieces and offered to pay only Rs. 250. While the coins were lying before them and were being counted the police officers came out and arrested the accused and took possession of all the coins. An Inspector was sent to Delhi, the place of residence of the accused, and on a search of their house a large number of implements e.g., 10 files, 4 shears, 36 chisels and 3 hammers, and a tin case containing clippings and some filings were found inside an iron safe along with a large quantity of defaced coins.

3. The accused did not deny their possession of these coins which ware sent to an officer of the Calcutta Mint;, for an examination and report. Mr. Hart, an officer employed at the Calcutta Mint, was examined as a witness to prove his report. According to his classification the coins ware of three main samples. Sample No. 1 were coins where no drastic attempt had been made to remove solder owing to the considerable wearage of the coins. These coins, however ware such as could have been received by Government at a reduced valuation. Sample No. 2 were coins which had not worn much but on which cutting had been done intentionally, which the expert thought amounted to a fraudulent treatment. Sample No. 3 were coins where the cutting and clipping had been practised to an extreme limit. The coins showed little or no wearage and were of recent dates. The weight of these coins, however wars remarkably close to the extreme limit of wearage prescribed, from which fact the expert presumed that scales must have been used in achieving this result.

4. The Courts below have examined the coins and agreed with the report of the expert that these coins are such as had been dishonestly and fraudulently operated on within the meaning of Section 247 and that the accused parsons were knowingly in possession of the same and had attempted to induce Rang Behari Lal to receive the same and were accordingly guilty of the offence u/s 251, Indian Penal Code.

5. Three main points have been urged before me.

6. The first is that as matter of fact' these coins have lost in weight owing to wearage and have not been actually defaced and are not coins which have been fraudulently or dishonestly operated upon. The second is that the accused were in possession of these coins which were in the form of ornaments, honestly and in the course of their ordinary business, and did not knowingly possess them as dishonestly or fraudulently defaced coins within the meaning of Section 251, Indian Penal Code. The third is that no offence u/s 251 was committed inasmuch as the coins had been transformed into ornaments and any clipping or cutting that was done was performed on ornaments as such and not on coins.

7. As regards the question of fact I must in revisi