BRIJ NANDAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal through counsel on behalf of Brij Nandan and from jail on behalf of Ram Prasad each of whom has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 232 and Section 235, I.P.C., and to five years concurrent rigorous imprisonment under Section 243, I. P.C. These offences relate to false coining. The evidence for the prosecution consists of the statements of the Circle Inspector and Sub-Inspector and other police officers of Pilibhit city to the effect that they received information that false coining was taking place at the house of the accused Ram Prasad in Pilibhit city. A party of the police, with four search witnesses from the locality, Phulchand, Khubchand, Shambhunath and Chidda, went to the house of Ram Parsad and found Ram Prasad in the shop on the ground floor, and in that shop there was a furnace, a light and a fan attached to the wall and five counterfeit rupees and some genuine coins and instruments of counterfeiting consisting of six iron frames, two presses, screws, crucibles, lead, etc. The accused Brij Nandan was found in a room upstairs in which there were 41 counterfeit Rupees, 7 counterfeit four-anna pieces, 61 counterfeit one-anna pieces, a brass scale, a phial and a packet of cleaning powder. The witnesses state that the accused Brij Nandan was brought downstairs, and that at the direction of the police the accused Brij Nandan made with the materials a counterfeit rupee Ex. 35, assisted by the accused Ram Prasad who worked the fan. A list was made of the articles found in the house.

(2.) The defence is an allegation that these articles were planted in the house, and the witnesses to the search have been cross-examined to show that there had been some litigation remotely connecting them with the accused. As regards the making of the counterfeit rupee objection was taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant that this was not admissible in evidence. There are only three sections of the Evidence Act barring testimony . connected with an accused person. These sections are Secs.24, 25 and 26. They all bar confessions made in certain circumstances. Now a confession is an admission by an accused person in a criminal case. Section 17, Evidence Act, defines an admission as a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. The making of a counterfeit coin is not a statement.

(3.) Accordingly the evidence given by the witnesses, that the two accused made this counterfeit coin in their presence is not barred by Secs.24, 25 or 26, Evidence Act. No other section is shown which could bar such evidence. The accused Ram Prasad owns a house in which the coins and implements were found. The accused Brij Nandan explained his presence on the occasion by saying that he was a witness in a case in the Small Cause Court in which Ram Prasad was a party, and that he had been called on that date for a consultation. But he could not have been engaged in the consultation at the time, because he was alone in the upper room, and he was not with Ram Prasad or anyone else. I consider that there is nothing in this allegation for the defence. The convictions of both the accused are correct. The sentences are not severe, as the large number of coins found indicates that the fraud has been systematically carried out. Accordingly I dismiss these appeals. The accused. Brij Nandan who is on bail will surrender to his bail.