Kishan Lal vs The State

Chopra, J.—Krishan Lal Appellant and one Attra were tried by the Magistrate 1st Class, Kandaghat with enhanced powers u/s 30, Cri.P.C. for an offence u/s 240 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Attra was acquitted and Krishan Lal was convicted u/s 240, I.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years'' R.I. and. Rs 50/- fine. He has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The story of the prosecution is that on 5-11-1950 Krishan Lal Appellant engaged Attra as a labourer to carry a Jhola containing a number of one rupee coins for him. They traveled from one village to another in Kandaghat Tehsil and on one excuse or the other delivered counterfeit coins in exchange for currency notes received from the persons made victims of the ruse played by the Appellant. Nazir Ahmad P.W. 1 of village Jagota was the first to be cheated of currency notes worth Rs. 200/-. Chet Ram Brahman of Neota P.W. 5 was deprived of currency notes of Rs. 50/- in exchange of 50 spurious coins of one rupee each; and Dila Ram P.W. 6 of village Kharki was given 100 one rupee coins for currency notes of that amount.

The persons cheated, on getting suspicious of the nature of the coins delivered to them, succeeded in arresting the accused persons in village Brauri. Daya Ram, Babu Ram and I Devi Ram of Brauri P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 were present when the accused were arrested and the Jhola containing 539 counterfeit one rupee coins was taken possession of from Attra. On a search of Krishan Lal, Appellant''s person currency notes worth Rs. 400/- were also recovered. The accused confessed their guilt and their confessions were recorded by Devi Ram lambardar. The accused were'' then taken to the police station Kandaghat at a distance of 15 miles from Brauri, and a report at the instance of Nazir Ahmad was recorded on 6-11-1950 at 6 P.M. The police took both the accused into custody and registered a case under Sections 420 and 240, I.P.C.

From the evidence of the persons cheated and those in whose presence the accused wore arrested, it stands abundantly established that the Appellant uttered counterfeit King''s coins to the three witnesses at different villages and at different times, and that the Jhola belonging to the Appellant was found to contain as many as 539 such counterfeit one-rupee coins. All these witnesses are thoroughly independent and they had absolutely no cause to falsely implicate the Appellant. The facts alleged by the prosecution are not disputed before me and have not been challenged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. He, however, contends that on the facts proved the accused could only be convicted for an offence u/s 241 and not one u/s 240, I.P.C. The argument is that the prosecution had not led any evidence to prove that at the time when the Appellant became possessed of the coins he knew them to be counterfeit. The confession of the accused recorded by Devi Ram lambardar, in which the accused had stated that he had purchased 890 spurious one-rupee coins for Rs. 670/- from a friend of his, has not been relied upon by the learned trial Judge. It is urged that if this confession was ruled out there would be nothing left on the record to indicate that the accused at the time he became possessed of the coins knew that they were counterfeit, and since that is a necessary ingredient of an offence u/s 240, I.P.C, the conviction was unsustainable.

It is no doubt correct that for a conviction u/s 240, I.P.C., the point of time to .be considered in connection with the offence is the time when the accused became possessed of the false coins and it has to be shown that at that particular time the accused knew that the coins were not genuine. But 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 from which a reasonable presumption could be raised that the accused ought to have known at the time he became possessed of the coins that they were counterfeit. In the present case, it cannot be denied that the accused was originally possessed of as many as 890 counterfeit coins, and at the time when 539, of them were recovered from his Jhola he knew that they were counterfeit. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the accused went from village to village for the purpose of disposing of these coins. The coins looked as if they were newly minted and most of them bore the same year, 1944.

The accused did not give any explanation is to how he happened to possess such large number of counterfeit coins and contented himself with a complete denial of their having .been passed on by him to the three witnesses and the recovery of the rest of them from his Jhola. He was in best position to give explanation as to how and when he came into possession of so many similar counterfeit coins. In the confession which was subsequently retracted and which has not been relied upon by the trial Judge simply for the reason that no mention of it had been made in the F.I.R., the accused had disclosed the source and the means from and by which he had got the coins. Even if that be left out of consideration, the circumstances brought out on record leave no doubt in my mind that the accused must have known at the time he got into possession of the coins that they were counterfeit. That the accused had the knowledge can very well be gathered from his conduct and the other circumstances of the case. The learned defence counsel has not been able to put forth any reasonable suggestion how the accused could have become possessed of so many and such coins without knowing that they were counterfeit. In the absence of any explanation, the number and nature of the coins make me think that the accused was dealing in such coins as a part of his business and they irresistibly lead to the inference that the accused knew when he became possessed of them that they were counterfeit. To pass on counterfeit coins after having received them with the knowledge that they were counterfeit was sufficient to warrant conviction.

The facts of the decisions cited by Shri Jagan Nath in support of his argument were quite different. In none of them a presumption with respect to the particular knowledge required u/s 240, I.P.C. could be drawn from the circumstances proved by the prosecution. In - ''Ram Saran Das v. Nathwa'' 1919 PLR 69 , the accused was found to be in possession of only two counterfeit coins and there was no evidence that he know them to be counterfoil, when he became possessed of them. Similarly, the prisoner had with him 8 and 4 counterfeit coins respectively in - ''Bhan Singh v. Emperor'' 3 PLR 235 and - Kosho Bania Vs. Emperor, Since the number of the coins was, very small and there was nothing else to show that the accused had the requisite knowledge at the time he got them, conviction u/s 240, I.P.C. or 243, I.P.C. was held to be illegal. Persons can reasonably be expected to get a few counterfeit coins without knowing that they were counterfeit in their daily purchases or in the course of their usual business. But in the present case as already observed, the accused was carrying as many as 890 similar coins and had passed on 350 out of them as genuine to three of the prosecution witnesses. In view of the facts it can be safely presumed that the accused had the particular knowledge when he got possessed of the coins. He has therefore, been rightly convicted u/s 240, T.P.C. I do not think any interference is called for in the matter of sentence. The appeal is consequently dismissed.