BHASKARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are by the accused in S. C. 74 of 1968 on the file of the Sessions Judge of Trivandrum against the conviction and sentence passed on them under S. 120-B, 489-A and 489-D of the I. P. C. Accused nos. 1, 5 and 6 have been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years under S. 489-A and accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for three years each under the same section. Accused 1, 5 and 6 have been further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years under s. 489-D and accused 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 to a further term of Rigorous Imprisonment for three years each under above the above section. Accused 1, 5 and 6 have been further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years under S. 120-B and the other accused to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. Sentences are to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 99 is by the 1st accused, 106 by the 7th accused, 116 by the 3rd accused, 123 by the 4th accused, 137 by accused 2,5 and 6, and 144 by accused No. 8.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that accused 1, 5, 6 and 8 entered into a conspiracy in June 1967 to commit the offence of counterfeiting two rupee currency-notes and to traffic in the same. In furtherance of the conspiracy the 5th accused purchased 4 kilograms of type metal (antimony) from the shop of Pw6 for making blocks for counterfeiting. With the type metal the 5th accused got 4 plates cast by Pw 3 and 4 days thereafter accused Nos. 5 and 6 together went to Pw3 and got 3 more similar plates made by him. THE plates were intended for engraving the blocks of two rupee currency-notes and the 6th accused started engraving the plates for counterfeiting. THE tools for engraving were made by one Subramonian Asari at the behest of accused 5 and 6. THE 6th accused continued the work of engraving for about a month supervised by accused 1, 5 and 8. While the engraving work was in progress, accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6 started looking for a second-hand treadle press and finally fixed upon the one owned by Pw4 at Ambasamudram. That was purchased through a broker, Pw 10. THE press was then transported from Ambasamudram to 'lakshmi Vilas' the residence of the 1st accused. THEre, the press was re-assembled by accused 1, 5, 5 and 8 and it was made fit for printing the notes. Accused 5 and 6 then purchased printing ink of different colours, the ink reducer and sunlit bond paper from the Travancore Paper Mart, Trivandrum, and one tin of light rose printing ink from Vidyadiraja Paper Depot, Trivandrum. All these were then taken to the residence of the 1st accused and there incomplete two rupee currency notes called by the witnesses as "proof notes" were printed by accused 1, 5, 6 and 8 somewhere in August 1967 or beginning of September, 1967. Accused 2, 3, 4 and 7 and one other accused absconding and another Velayudhan Achari since deceased, joined the conspiracy in December, 1967 or January 1968 and by the joint effort of all these accused the process of printing two rupee currency-notes went on at'lakshmi Vilas' the residence of 1st accused till the beginning of March 1968. THE crime was detected by the Deputy Superintendent of c. I. D. Crime Branch who gave the F. I. Statement, Ext. P66 before the neyyattinkara Police. THE F. I. R. Ext. P67 was prepared by the Station officer. THE Deputy Superintendent of Police assisted by pws 41 and 42, the Sub inspector of Police Neyyattinkara and Assistant Commissioner of Police, trivandrum respectively, conducted the investigation and filed the charge.

(3.) THE first point argued was in respect of the criminal conspiracy. THEre is absolutely no evidence in the case to connect any of the accused with criminal conspiracy. Learned Judge has not discussed this question with reference to the witnesses cited for the purpose. In Para. 11 of the judgment however, a passing reference has been made about the conspiracy and even there no reference is made to the witnesses cited for the purpose. THE learned judge has made some general observations about criminal conspiracy, for instance: "in appreciating the evidence in a case relating to conspiracy it has to be borne in mind that it is not possible to give evidence of the date of the formation of the conspiracy and about the particular object of each person who was member of the conspiracy. " To substantiate this general feature of criminal conspiracy the learned judge has cited some authorities also. But the question as such has been left out without any discussion whatever, much less any finding touching on it. Learned State Counsel invited my attention to the evidence of pws 2 and 13 in this connection. Pw2 is one Daniel who deposed that he had occasion to see accused 3 and 6 going to the house of the 9th accused. But he is not sure for what purpose accused 5 and 6 used to go to the house of the 8th accused. THE witness has also made it clear that the 8th accused is a physician, practising also black magic. In connection with his profession all sorts of people used to visit him. On this evidence it is difficult to find criminal conspiracy against the accused. Pw 13's evidence is of no help at all, because he speaks of people going to the 1st accused's house. THE charge which the accused are called upon to answer is that they conspired in the house of the 8th accused. But Pw13's evidence is that he had seen some of the accused going to the 1st accused's house. Like Pw2, this witness also does not know for what purpose the accused used to meet in the 1st accused's house. He has also stated that not only the accused but he has seen so many others also going to the 1st accused's house. From this no criminal conspiracy can be inferred. Of course, direct evidence cannot possibly be expected to prove criminal conspiracy. But the materials now before court are of no consequence at all to prove conspiracy. I should in the circumstances, think that the charge of criminal conspiracy has not been proved against the accused.