EMPEROR Vs. PRASANNA KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prasanna Kumar Das has been convicted of an offence under Section 243 of the Indian Indian Penal Code. The history of the case, as appears from the evidence which we accept, is as follows: Prasanna, who was a contributor to a local newspaper at Barisal, told the Editor that he knew of people, who made counterfeit coins and asked him to place him in communication with the special Police Inspector, that he might help him to an arrest and so secure a reward. This was done, and Prasanna told the Inspector he knew of one Wahed Ali of Jhalakhati, who made false coins. The Inspector told him he would be rewarded if he could get the man caught in possession of counterfeit coin. Suddenly Prasanna went off by steamer and rail to Calcutta with 40 or 50 counterfeit rupees. These he admittedly obtained from one Chand Sarip, and for the reasons stated by the Judge we are satisfied that he got them before the interview with the Inspector. Prasanna's trunk was broken open by some thief in Calcutta, and the counterfeit coins were stolen and thus he was unable to pass them as had been arranged with Chand Sarip. The theft was disclosed when a coolie went to the post office with 10 of the bad rupees to obtain a money-order. Then, Prasanna finding himself in a corner gave information to the Police, which led to the discovery of 64 counterfeit rupees in Chand Sarip's house. For this Chand Sarip was separately tried and convicted.

(2.) Chand Sarip was also tried jointly with Prasanna in the present case, the charge against him being one under Section 240 with reference to the 40 or 50 rupees which he admittedly made for to Prasanna to pass off in Calcutta. On Chand Sarip's confession coupled with the evidence both direct and circumstantial it is clear that Prasanna is guilty and that he first put the police on the wrong scent and then slipped oil to Calcutta with the false coins previously obtained from Chand Sarip.

(3.) It has been objected that Chand Sarip could not be tried for an offence under Section 240 after he had been convicted of the possession of base coin under Section 243 and that therefore his confession as co-accused was improperly used against Prasanna. In the second place it is urged that the joint trial of these two men is had in law.