SMT. GANGA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from jail by Smt. Ganga who has been convicted under Sections 240 and 243, I.P.C. and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment under the first count and to two years' rigorous imprisonment under the second count; the sentence to run concurrently. The appellant is the daughter of Behari. Behari was tried jointly with the appellant and he was convicted under Sections 235, 240 and 243 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to certain terms of imprisonment. Another person by name Charan Das was also convicted and sentenced at the same trial under Sections 240 and 243, I.P.C. Behari happened to be a tenant in a house in Chota Juhi in Kanpur, which belonged to one Anant Ram. The other two accused Charan Das and Smt. Ganga lived along with him in the same house. On 9th of Dec., 1953, information was received by the police that these three accused had been uttering counterfeit Indian coins in the market. At 7 p.m. on that date they were shadowed in Bakarganj Bazar by two constables by name Ram Singh and Ramzani who were in plain dress. The constables followed them from one shop to another. The party of the accused made purchases from certain shops and uttered counterfeit coins there by fraudulently inducing the shop-keepers that the coins were genuine. In certain other shops they failed in their attempt, inasmuch as those counterfeit coins were not accepted by the sellers, Under the first category the sellers happened to be Abdul Khaliq from whom a seer of brinjal had been purchased by Smt. Ganga. The other seller was Ramzani butcher from whom certain quantity of meat had been purchased by Behari. The third seller was Chhotey Lal from whom certain quantity of fish had been purchased by Charan Das. Smt. Ganga in common with the other two accused fraudulently induced Abdul Khaliq to accept an eight-anna counterfeit coin as genuine. So were the other two sellers induced to accept counterfeit coins by fraudulent representation of the purchasers that the coins had been genuine. Under the other category of the dealers who did not fall a prey to the fraudulent designs of the accused persons were Ram Sahai, Karim Ahmad and Abdul Ghani. After having made the purchases the three accused suspected that they were being shadowed by the police and they therefore wanted to leave the market as quickly as possible. When they proceeded up to a distance of about 10 or 15 paces from the mosque in Bakarganj Bazar where fish is sold, they were apprehended by Ramzani and Ram Singh Constables who had shadowed them all along and had noticed them purchasing meat, fish, and brinjal and delivering the counterfeit coins to the respective sellers, prevailing upto them by fraudulent inducement that the coins were genuine. Ramzani Constable sent Yakub Khan to police station Babupurwa to convey information that they had rounded up three accused who were dealing in counterfeit Indian coins. Head Constable Bansidhar, who happened to be present at the Thana, on receipt of information left for the place of occurrence after entering the information that was received through Yakub Khan in the general diary. On arrival at Bakarganj bazar he found the three accused in the custody of Ramzani and Ram Singh. Upon a search of the person of the three accused in the presence of certain witnesses counterfeit coins were recovered respectively from their possession together with certain genuine coins. The coins were separately sealed up and recovery lists were prepared in accordance with rules. The coins were sent to the Mint Master and the report of the Mint Master was to the effect that they were spurious or counterfeit Indian coins. The prosecution story stated above found ample support from the evidence of the vendors as also from the evidence of the recovery witnesses produced in the case and further from the evidence of the Mint Master.

(2.) The contention of Smt. Ganga was to the effect that she did not utter counterfeit coins and that nothing incriminating was found from her possession. No evidence was, however, given in defence.

(3.) After going through the evidence on the record I am satisfied that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution conclusively proved that the coins in question were counterfeit coins; that the Appellant became possessed of them; that when she became so possessed she knew that they were counterfeit coins; that she delivered the same to the vendors and attempted to induce some others to receive the same; that when she delivered the same, she intended to defraud the vendors. I am further satisfied that the counterfeit coins were the counterfeit of Indian coins. In a case of this nature it is not always possible or necessary that the particular knowledge should be proved by positive evidence. The prosecution may bring out circumstances which might indicate or on which a reasonable presumption could be raised that the accused ought to have known at the time she became possessed of the coins that they were counterfeit. If three accused are indicated for uttering counterfeit coins having other counterfeit coins in their possession, it is not necessary to prove with certainty which of the pieces was the one uttered and which was found on them unuttered if all the pieces of money are proved to be counterfeit, and if it appear that the three accused went to different shops and that one or the other uttered the bad money and all of them fraudulently prevailed upon the shop-keepers to accept the money as genuine, they can all be convicted under Sec. 240 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case there was the additional evidence to the effect as to which bad coin had been uttered by which accused. In the circumstances of the case I am of opinion that the evidence was sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to warrant the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 240 of the Indian Penal Code.