GUDAR SAO Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Section 243, I.P.C., and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The charge against him runs as follows: That you, on or about 10 April 1935 at Maulaganj, P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya, fraudulently or with intent that fraud might be committed were in possession of 13 rupees, 3 eight-anna bits, 2 four-anna bits, 12 one-anna bits, all counterfeits of the King's coin, knowing at the time when you became possessed of the said coins that they were counterfeits, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 213, I.P.C.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that in the course of a search of the house of the petitioner in connection with an offence under Secs.457 and 380 of the Code, the coins in question were recovered from a cloth bundle kept inside a black wooden box under lock and key in the southeastern corner of an east-facing room on the second storey of the house of the petitioner on 10 April 1935, when they were entered in the search-list which is Ex. 1 in this case. An information was lodged by the Sub-Inspector who had recovered the coins, whereupon an investigation was started and the petitioner was sent up for trial. The coins were examined by a poddar (P.W. 8) who found that they were counterfeits, and in fact there is no denial as to this. The defence was that the coins at one time belonged to the Sijuar estate and in the year 1932 were sold as a part of the estate's property. The purchase was ostensibly made by one Motilal but the petitioner had a half-share in it, with the result that the counterfeit coins fell in his share. The petitioner is a goldsmith by caste.

(3.) The Courts below have found that these coins were purchased by the petitioner at an auction sale as evidenced by Ex. A; but they were of opinion that the fact that the purchase was made in the year 1932, that at the time of the purchase they were known to be counterfeits, and that they had not been used for the purposes of moulds by the petitioner indicated that they were being kept with a fraudulent intent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied on Emperor V/s. Sangaram 1933 Oudh. 85, and has held that the ingredients necessary to prove the offence under Section 243 have been established against the petitioner. I am of opinion that on the facts found the important element of the offence that the petitioner was in possession of counterfeit; coins "fraudulently, or with intent that fraud may be committed" has not been proved in this case. That this was not the only property purchased at the auction sale is clear from the evidence. Out of the lot purchased these coins turned out to be bad coins. The purchase was made openly and there was no attempt at concealment. After the purchase it is not shown that any attempt has been made by the petitioner to pass on the coins to other persons as genuine.