TULSI RAM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Tulshi Ram has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 243, I.P.C., for being in possession of counterfeit coin which are counterfeits of the King's coin with intent that fraud might be committed and having known at the time when he became possessed of the coin that they were counterfeit.

(2.) It appears from the evidence that a Sub-Inspector of Police obtained information that the applicant and his brother Salig Ram, who lived with him, were engaged in manufacturing and passing counterfeit coin in connexion with a relation of theirs. He consequently searched the house in the presence of a large number of people, including 5 witnesses four of whom signed the search list. One of these witnesses, as the learned Judge has remarked, was a gentleman of position. This gentleman has not been produced as a witness in the case, but the learned Judge has remarked quite reasonably that it was not probable that any underhand dealings would take place in his presence. The witnesses who have been examined say that the house was searched and that some counterfeit coin and a mould were found in a rack in one of the rooms. There is not the slightest reason to disbelieve this evidence in the circumstances. There can be no doubt, therefore, that counterfeit coin were found in the house occupied by the applicant and his brother.

(3.) One of the points raised in de fence was that there had been a partition of the house and that this particular part of it in which the coins were found was in the separate possession of an uncle of the applicant, called Gajadhar. The Magistrate disbelieved this evidence. The point was raised again in the Sessions Court in appeal and the learned Sessions Judge was satisfied that the story was not true. This is an application in revision and it is not for me necessarily to go into all the questions of fact involved. It seems to me, however, that it is perfectly clear that the de fence cannot be true. If the house of that part of it which was being searched had been in the possession of Gajadhar and not of the applicant and his brother, the applicant would have said so at the time, and there is nothing to show that he did say so. There are two de fence witnesses who are obviously unreliable. They have tried to make out that the rack in which the articles are alleged to have been found was first searched in their presence and that the articles were not in it. They say that they left the room and that a constable then said that he had found the articles in the rack. Considering the number of people present and the nature of this search, I have ho doubt that this story is absolutely false, and it follows that the witnesses are unreliable.