The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Anna Chandy, J.:— These criminal appeals and criminal revision petition arise from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Trivandrum in a counterfeit currency note case.
2. Of the nine accused persons tried by the learned Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 489A and 489D I.P.C accused 4, 5, 6 and 8 have been acquitted and the rest convicted. The first accused was convicted under Section 120B I.P.C alone and was sentenced to undergo, rigorous imprisonment for two years. Accused 2, 3 and 9 were convicted under Sections 120B, 489A and 489D and given a concurrent sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment. Accused 7 is convicted under Sections 120B and 489D I.P.C and given a concurrent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years. Along with the appeals of the convicted persons the State's appeal against the acquittal of accused 4, 5, 6 and 8 and the revision petition asking for the enhancement of the sentence of the appellants have been heard by us. The prosecution case is that these nine accused together with two others, who have turned approvers and one Krishnan, who is now no more, entered into a conspiracy to produce counterfeit two-rupee currency notes. They obtained the blocks necessary for printing the notes from one N.S Nair—who later committed suicide—and also purchased a press and other necessary equipment but were unsuccessful in producing counterfeit notes as the blocks turned out to be defective. They later obtained another set of blocks and had given them to be mounted and corrected when the conspiracy came to light and they were arrested.
3. The main evidence in this case is provided by the two approvers (P.Ws 1 and 2) and the prosecution case is best stated as sworn to by them.
4. P.W 1 Ravindran is a native of Kadakkavoor. He had passed his Matriculation and at the relevant time was a student of automobile engineering at the Central Motor School in Thampanoor, Trivandrum, staying in a hostel called the Majestic Home near the railway over-bridge at Thampanoor. One day towards the end of December 1959, P.W 1 met Krishnan who was known to him before. Krishnan invited P.W 1 to visit him at his house a couple of days later. Accordingly P.W 1 went to Krishnan's house at about 9 p.m on 2nd January, 1960. He found Kuttan Panicker (accused one) and Krishnan Panicker (accused 5) already there and talking with Krishnan. He joined them and soon the talk turned to the counterfeiting of currency. Krishnan said that he knew one N.S Nair an expert in block making and who had been involved in a counterfeiting case recently. Krishnan volunteered to get the blocks made by N.S Nair if his companions so desired. P.W 1 in his turn offered to get the blocks made by an acquaintance of his one Narayanan Asari (accused 9). They finally decided that Krishnan should approach N.S Nair and try to obtain the necessary blocks. About a week later Krishnan met P.W 1 at the Majestic Home and asked him to go over to the house of accused one at Poovar two days later. On the appointed day Krishnan together with accused 5 and another person, Bhanu Panicker (accused 6) came to the Majestic Home in Krishnan's car and after picking up P.W 1 proceeded to Poovar. When they reached the first accused's house one Mohammed Sali (accused 2) was already there. Krishnan informed the others that he had approached N.S Nair who agreed to make the necessary blocks for counterfeiting two-rupee notes. Krishnan further told them that N.S Nair had asked him to get the blocks corrected and mounted by some one else. P.W 1 suggested that the job should be got done by his friend accused 9. They then decided to buy a press to print the notes. Accused 1 suggested that the press should be purchased through Yesudasan (accused 3) a friend of his and the owner of the Vijaya Press. Accused 2 volunteered to invest the money for the press. After this discussion the accused dispersed. The next day P.W 1 went to Paravoor and talked to accused 9 about mounting the blocks to which the latter agreed. This information was conveyed by P.W 1 to Krishnan at the Taj Mahal Hotel in Trivandrum which Krishnan often used to visit. At Krishnan's request P.W 1 went again to Taj Hotel four days later. There he met Krishnan, accused 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Krishnan showed them four blocks of the two-rupee currency note which he handed over to P.W 1 to get them mounted and corrected by accused 9. The talk turned to the availability of a house for carrying out the printing of notes. Accused 6 stated that he could not find a suitable house for the purpose. However he undertook to arrange the house of one Gangadharan (accused 7) if no other house was available. Accused 3 stated that if found suitable, the house of Thankayyan Nadar (accused 4) at Anayara could be arranged for. P.W 1, Krishnan and accused 1 and 3 went the same night to the house of accused 4 and after inspecting it decided that the house will serve the purpose they had in mind. The next day P.W 1 went to Paravoor and handed the blocks to accused 9 to be mounted. A few days later he met Krishnan again at the Taj Hotel and informed him about giving the blocks to accused 9. Krishnan in his turn informed him that a press had been purchased by accused 3 through P.W 2. One day early in March P.W 1 got back the mounted blocks from accused 9 and after handing them over to Krishnan at Trivandrum returned to his house at Kadakkavoor. Early in April on the 6th or 7th he was informed by accused 3 that Krishnan wanted to meet him. He met Krishnan the same day when he was informed that while printing proofs the blocks were damaged. Krishnan held P.W 1 responsible for the trouble. P.W 1 protested against that and hot words were exchanged between them. They parted, P.W 1 who agreed to bring accused 9 to meet Krishnan. When P.W 1 informed accused 9 about this, accused 9 disclaimed all responsibility, alleging that damage was caused because of the defects in the blocks. He also refused to go to Krishpan's house. After this P.W 1 returned to his house at Kadakkavoor and had no more dealings with the other conspirators.
5. The thread of the narrative is taken up by P.W 2 Augustine Thomas. He is the proprietor of the St. Thomas Type Foundry in Kunnukuzhi, Trivandrum. He was acquainted with accused 3 as the owner of the Vijaya Press and had business dealings with him. One day about the 13th January, 1960 accused 3 met P.W 2 and told him that he wanted to buy a treadle press to start a branch of his press at Kattakada. P.W 2 who knew that Narayanan Nair (P.W 6) had such a press for sale approached him and P.W 6 promised to sell it for Rs. 750/-. A few days later P.W 2 conveyed this information to accused 3 and both of them went to the house of P.W 6 to inspect the press. After some bargaining the price was finally fixed at Rs. 550/-. On 12th January, 1960 accused 1 and 3 came in first accused's car to the house of P.W 2 and after picking him up went to P.W 6. They paid the money and took delivery of the press. Though the price actually paid was only Rs. 550/- the sale deed was written for Rs. 1,500/-. They then dismantled the press and carried it in the car to Krishnan's house. P.W 2 was told that he would be informed when the press was to be assembled and then sent away. One day early in March 1960 accused 1 and 3 took P.W 2 to Krishnan's house. There they met accused 2. All of them together loaded the dismantled press into the first accused's car and went to the house of accused 7 at Aryanad where they met accused 5, 6 and 7. P.W 2 and the others removed the press to the house and there P.W 2 with the help of accused 3 assembled it. According to P.W 2 it was at this time that his suspicions were roused as to the purpose the press was to serve. He protested but was prevailed upon to join the conspiracy. About a week later accused 3 informed P.W 2 that he should go to the house of accused 7 on the 5th of April to help in the printing of the notes. Accordingly P.W 2 went to accused 7's house at about 8.30 P.M on 5th April, 1961. There he met accused 5, 6 and 7. Some time later accused 1 to 4 and Krishnan also reached the place. Krishnan had six blocks with him and accused 3 some paper and black printing ink. Accused 3 and P.W 2 printed proofs from all the six blocks but the results were not satisfactory. Krishnan said that accused 9 and Ravindran (P.W 1) were responsible for the defects in the blocks. Soon afterwards, entrusting the blocks to accused 7 the others left the place. Two months later in June accused 2, 3 and 4 came in a car to the house of P.W 2 and wanted him to help them to remove the press from the house of accused 7 to that of accused 4. P.W 2 accompanied them to accused 7's house and from there removed the press to the house of accused 4 and a box containing paper, ink, etc., to the shop of accused 2 at Chalai. On the first or second of November 1960 Krishnan took P.W 2 to Paravoor to the house of accused 9. Krishnan accused the 9th accused of cheating him. He said that the blocks returned by accused 9 were not the ones Krishnan had sent to him. After an exchange of words accused 9 handed over to Krishnan four blocks. P.W 2 and Krishnan then left for Trivandrum. Before they parted Krishnan stated that he was going to see an Asari in Neyyattinkara to get the blocks corrected. Seven or eight days later P.W 2 accompanied by accused 3 and 4 went to Krishnan's house where they met Krishnan and accused 1, 2 and 5. Krishnan gave accused 3 a letter to Narayanan Asari of Neyyattinkara (accused 8). P.W 2 and accused 3 tobk the letter to accused 8 and got four blocks. These they took back to Krishnan. As the-blocks were not corrected Krishnan gave them back to accused 3 to get that done. Krishnan then sent P.W 2 away saying that he would be informed when the blocks were ready. The last contact P.W 2 had with the other conspirators was on a day early in January 1961 when accused 1 and 4 came in a car to the house of P.W 2 and wanted him to help them to remove the press from the house of accused 4 to a place in Pallithura as the wife of accused 4 was protesting against keeping the press in her house. P.W 2 went there and assisted in dismantling the press, packing it in a gunny bag and loading it on to accused 1's car. Accused 1 and 4 left in the car for Pallithura while P.W 2 returned home. After this incident P.W 2 did not meet the others again till after his arrest.
6. The police got information regarding this crime on 4th March, 1961 when they were investigating another counterfeit currency case. The information was received by P.W 27 the Circle Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara who was enquiring into the other case, from Bhuvanendran an accused in that case. P.W 27 immediately prepared the First Information Report and with the help of P.W 26 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nemom began the investigation. They proceeded first to the house of accused at Poovar and arrested him. They also searched his house, but nothing incriminating was recovered. Accused 3 was also arrested the same day at his house at Kanjiramkulam. His house was searched and two letters one written by Krishnan and the other by accused 1 and the sale receipt for the press were recovered from there. Early next day the Police arrived at the house of accused 8, at Neyyattinkara. The accused's house as well as the press owned by him were searched, some blocks were recovered from the house and three letters sent by accused 4 were recovered from the press. Both accused 4 and P.W 2 were arrested on the same day and though their houses were searched nothing incriminating was found. On 5th March, 1961 the police accompanied by accused 1 and 4 went to the house of a sister-in-law of accused 4 at Pallithura. From the compound of that house accused 1 and 4 dug up parts of a treadle press which had been buried in the groud. Accused 5 and 6 were arrested the next day but a search of their house yielded nothing. Accused 2 was arrested on 7th March, 1961 and his house and shop searched. The police recovered from his shop a promissory note made by accused 3 in favour of Krishnan and endorsed to accused 2 and a dealwood box containing paper, ink and other printing materials. Accused 9 was arrested at his house in Parvoor on 13th March, 1961 and a search of his house yielded some letters sent to him by Krishnan and accused 4. The next day accused 7 was arrested at Poovar and on searching his house the police recovered some blocks. The last to be apprehended was P.W 1 who after being in hiding for over a month, surrendered before the Magistrate at Neyyattinkara on 13th April, 1961.
7. All the accused denied participation in the conspiracy and have repudiated the searches and recoveries. Both accused 1 and accused 5 alleged that they were falsely implicated in the case due to enmity of P.W 26, the Sub Inspector towards them; the enmity, in the case of accused 5, alleged to be due to property disputes between him and the Inspector's family. Accused 2 alleges that the case was foisted on him by P.W 27 the Circle Inspector due to his ill feeling towards the accused who had sent a petition to the Government against him. Accused 3 admits that he bought a press from P.W 6. However, according to him the press was bought in December 1959 for his own purpose and he later sold it to Krishnan. He further stated that Krishnan finding that the press was defective, forced him to sign a pro-note for Rs. 1,400/- in his favour to cover the price of the press. All the other accused flatly deny having had anything to do with the crime.
8. As already noted the main evidence against the accused is provided by the testimony of the two approvers. All the learned counsel for the defence vehemently contend that the trial court was wrong in accepting the approvers' evidence. It is argued that these witnesses being self-proclaimed criminals cannot be relied upon. It would therefore be helpful to review the principles governing the appreciation of approvers' evidence before we proceed to analyse the testimony of P.Ws 1 and 2.
9. As the law relating to approvers' evidence has been laid down in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab (A.I.R 1957 S.C 637) there is no need to refer to any earlier decision on the point. His Lordship Gajendragadkar J. who spoke for the Court held that:
“An approver is undoubtedly a competent witness under the Evidence Act. But the appreciation of his evidence has to satisfy a double test. His evidence must show that he is a reliable witness and that is a test which is common to all witnesses. If this test is satisfied the second test which still remains to be applied is that the approver's evidence must receive sufficient corroboration. This test is special to the cases of weak or trainted evidence like that of the approver.”
“Every person who is a competent witness is not a reliable witness and the test of reliability has to be satisfied by an approver all the more before the question of corroboration of his evidence is considered by criminal courts.”
10. Regarding the extent of corroboration His Lordship goes on to observe as follows:
“Courts are naturally reluctant to act on the tainted evidence of an approver unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. But it would not be right to expect that such independent corroboration should cover the whole of the prosecution story or even all the material particulars. If such a view is adopted it would render the evidence of the accomplice wholly superfluous. On the other hand, it would not be safe to act upon such evidence merely because it is corroborated in minor particulars or incidental details because, in such a case, corroboration does not afford the necessary assurance that the main story disclosed by the approver can be reasonably and safely accepted as true.”
11. The position therefore is, that the court may accept the evidence of an approver if he is found to be reliable and his testimony receives corroboration from independent sources. The corroboration, while it need not cover his entire story or all its material particulars, should be of such a nature as to afford the assurance that the main story disclosed by him can safely be accepted. In other words while it is not necessary to insist on complete corroboration, nevertheless it is well to bear in mind the fact that the witness having won pardon for his part in the crime on the undertaking to help to obtain the conviction of his erstwhile collaborators, it is not at all unlikely that he may indulge in exaggeration or prevarication in an attempt to carry out his part of the bargain.
12. Turning to the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 we may say even at the outset that it does not come up to the standards stated above.
13. The evidence of P.W 1 was placed in its entirety before us and we find that it is not possible to consider him as a reliable witness. The circumstances under which Krishnan sought his services in the attempt to force two-rupee currency notes and the manner in which he appeared before the Magistrate to volunteer a confession all look extremely unnatural and suspicious. P.W 1 is a young man of 27 who was unable to make any progress with his studies and who after an unsuccessful attempt in doing business, made some fitful attempts to acquire experience in automobile engineering. In Trivandrum he lodged at the Majestic Home, but was not, according to the proprietor of the hotel P.W 3, in a position to pay the hotel charges and after issuing a cheque for Rs. 200/- to the proprietor which was dishonoured by the bank he ultimately had to leave the hotel which he did by locking up his room and walking away with the key. The manner of his emergence into the case also looks suspicious. Though the police had started the investigation of this case on 4th March, 1961 and had arrested all the other conspirators by 14th March, 1961 we do not hear anything about P.W 1 till 14th April, 1961 when he suddenly appeared before the Second Class Magistrate at Neyyattinkara. Even if he had been hiding successfully all this while it seems strange that the police who admittedly knew about his involvement in the case and who had searched the houses of all the others did not think it necessary to search his house also which is only half a mile away from the local police station. Even after his appearance before the Magistrate the police did not make any attempt to get custody of him for questioning. In his confession before the Magistrate recorded on the 17th of April that is, the fourth day after his arrest, he stated to the Magistrate that he had not been questioned by the police while in court he admitted that the Circle Inspector had questioned him on 15th or 16th. All these seem to provide substance to the defence claim that the stage was well prepared for his appearance.
14. Taking into consideration the casual nature of his acquaintance with Krishnan, it looks highly improbable that he would have been asked by Krishnan to join in such a conspiracy. According to P.W 1 he was introduced to Krishnan at an exhibition four or five years back by a relative of Krishnan's wife, but he is not even sure as to the nature of that man's relationship with Krishnan's wife. He admits that he did not know Krishnan's house. He had no dealings with Krishnan and had not visited him before. He does not know any of Krishnan's relations and knows few particulars regarding Krishnan. It is clear that he is practically a stranger to Krishnan and it is not possible to believe that Krishnan when he met the witness casually on the public road, suddenly took it into his head to seek his company in a most dangerous game he was about to play and that especially of a young man like P.W 1 who was in no position to make any contribution towards the success of the plan. There is artificiality also in the story that P.W 1 arranged With accused 9 to have the blocks mounted and corrected. According to him he volunteered to get at the services of the 9th accused to make the blocks because of the acquaintance he had with him in connection with making some materials for a press. When pressed further as to whether that acquaintance was sufficient to make him bold enough to ask him to make blocks to counterfeit currency notes, he came out with a wild story that he happened to read in the papers some years back that accused 9 had been involved in a case of making such blocks. There is also the strange fact that he paid nothing to accused 9 to do this dangerous work. The prosecution has no case that accused 9 either through P.W 1 or by himself contracted the other members of the gang with a view to becoming a partner in this business and therefore the only motive accused 9 could have had in complying with P.W 1's request was pecuniary remuneration. However according to P.W 1 no money was paid to accused 9, nor was any asked for. Far more strange is his story about getting back the blocks he had entrusted to accused 9. He gave four blocks but got back six. He is positive about the number of blocks he got back from accused 9 and what is more, he is sure that he received them in the condition that they are in now, i.e, two good blocks and four broken ones. It is not likely that anyone who had entrusted four good blocks for correction and mounting would be content with getting back two good ??? and four broken pieces. But P.W 1 takes them back coolly without protest or even comment. What is even more surprising is that even Krishnan received these pieces without protest and waited until eight months later when according to the prosecution it was found on printing that the blocks were not useful. Even a mere look at the blocks would have convinced anyone that the blocks would not serve their purpose. It is also rather strange that Krishnan a man of the world and one who it is alleged had previous experience in this line of business and who had mar aged to get the necessary blocks from N.S Nair an expert in the line, found himself unable to have the blocks corrected and mounted by a blacksmith and was compelled to seek the services of a casual acquaintance and a man who had absolutely no experience in the line as P.W 1. Even the manner of his exit from the conspiracy does not sound convincing. P.W 1's case is that he had to back out of the conspiracy because of the difference of opinion between him and Krishnan that arose on account of the failure of accused 9 to make the blocks fit for the purpose of counterfeiting. Having taken the risk and trouble in making all the preparations for producing the notes it is unlikely that he would coolly step down over a misunderstanding on a matter he was in no way responsible for. If indeed he had taken part in the conspiracy in the manner in which he now claims it is unlikely that he would have broken off his relations with the others just at the crucial moment when their labours were about to bear fruit. It even seems doubtful whether he had anything at all to do with the conspiracy to counterfeit two-rupee currency notes. None of the witnesses who are cited to corroborate the evidence given by P.W 1 swears to have met him at any stage of the conspiracy. The only circumstance which would indicate that he had anything to do with it is the reference to one Ravi in Ext. P. 10 letter who according to the police is P.W 1. It is a strange feature of this case that the approvers P.Ws 1 and 2 speak to entirely different stages in the conspiracy and one does not even refer to the other. This makes us feel that there is some truth in the suggestion made by the defence that P.W 1 was got at to supply the connecting link between the several accused and put forth an apparently cogent version and he was purposely made to back out and P.W 2 made to fill in the vacancy to avoid the possibility of any clash or contradiction between the evidence of the approvers.
15. The timely emergence of P.W 2 after the abrupt and sudden exit of P.W 1 from the scene looks rather dramatic. He was arrested on the morning of 5th March, 1961 and on the same day he was questioned by the Circle Inspector when he is alleged to have made a clean breast of it all. His confession however was recorded only 45 days later. If he had actually admitted anything to the Circle Inspector, there is no explanation why he was kept in the police custody for 15 days and subsequently in the Sub-Jail for another month before he made up his mind to confess before the Magistrate. Prolonged custody immediately preceding the making of the confession is sufficient to stamp the confession as involuntary unless it is properly explained. Nathu v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R 1956 S.C 56). In answer to a specific question by the defence whether he would have disclosed the information that is contained in his confession if he was produced before the Magistrate soon after his arrest he said he would not. It may be noted in this connection that in Ext. P. 31 the petition sent by P.W 2 from the Sub Jail, Trivandrum to the Magistrate, expressing his desire to make a confession, the word Neyyattinkara has been crossed out and the word Trivandrum substituted. The defence contention is that this petition was prepared by the Police at Neyyattinkara and given to the witness to be sent through the jail authorities. Though ordinarily one would not attach much weight to such an argument, in view of the veritable rush of corrections in the documents of this case with which we shall presently deal, we hesitate to dismiss this as completely insignificant.
16. P.W 2 would pretend that he came to know that the press was intended for counterfeiting notes, only when it was taken to a secret place. He states that as soon as he realised it, he protested and said he would have nothing to do with the matter and it was because he was frightened by the first accused and apprehended danger to his life that he continued to be a participant in the conspiracy. It is improbable that the accused who were out on this dangerous venture should go in for the services of an unwilling party from whom the only help they would get was dismantling and re-assembling the press, a work which could have been easily managed by accused 3 himself a press owner or by some employee of his. The witness admits that he did not get any remuneration for fitting the press a job which he did twice. He is a needy man with a big family and a small income and it is not likely that he would have got himself involved in the dangerous game without getting any remuneration. According to him when the press was purchased he was told that it was to be taken to Kattakada for opening a branch-of the third accused's press. However when on this pretext of going to Kattakada he was taken first to the City and then to Charachira to the house of Krishnan he says he was under the impression that he was proceeding to Kattakada. It is quite an unbelievable story coming as it does from one who was well acquainted with all the above places. Even when he found that the press was taken to Krishnan's house in Charachira he did not care to enquire why the press was taken there. The story that he was accompanying Krishnaa in his trips from place to place is also not probable as admittedly he was not even properly acquainted with Krishnan. There is no reason why Krishnan should have been particular of asking P.W 2 to keep him company when he went to get the blocks from accused 9. P.W 2 could not have been of any service to Krishnan and he himself admits that fact. He admits that he took no part in the conversation between Krishnan and accused 9. In fact he does not seem to have done anything more than accompanying Krishnan. It is hard to imagine why Krishnan wanted this silent witness to keep him company. The story narrated by him about going to the eighth accused along with the third accused with Ext. P. 2 slip from Krishnan for getting the blocks also looks highly improbable. There is no reason why accused 3 should have asked him to keep company with him in his errand. As in the case of his trip with Krishnan, on this journey also P.W 2 does nothing. He did not know accused 8 and took no part at all in the talk between accused 3 and accused 8. Even more strange is his story that accused 3 and Krishnan were content to receive back from accused 8 one block and broken pieces of another in return for four good blocks that had been entrusted to him. The next trip undertaken by P.W 2 is to the house of accused 4 for dismantling the press and taking it to Pallithura in January 1961. In Ext. P. 3 his confession as well as in his evidence P.W 2 would say that the press was removed in the car of the first accused while the prosecution case is that the press was taken in the car of P.W 17. His story about the attempt to print proofs with M.O 2 block also appears to be a myth. A mere look at the broken blocks would have convinced any one that no useful purpose would be served by taking proofs with them. Even if the accused wanted proof of the broken blocks it is highly unlikely that they would have used the technique described by the witness. According to him they did not use a roller to spread the ink, nor did they use printing paper or ink. Instead they are said to have used ordinary paper and writing ink, P.W 2 would also say that the proofs were later burnt; but he disclosed that information for the first time before the Sessions Court. His story about the taking of proofs seems nothing more than an attempt to make out that the accused had done something more than making preparations for counterfeiting.
17. When we find that P.Ws 1 and 2 are unreliable witnesses and that it is not possible to act on their evidence, the question of corroboration does not arise at all. All the same to make assurance doubly sure we shall advert to the evidence and circumstances relied upon by the prosecution by way of corroboration to the evidence of the approvers. It was argued by the learned Special Prosecutor that the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 should be used for corroborating each other. Apart from the fact that the evidence of one approver cannot be used to corroborate the evidence of another there is the positive evidence in the case that both of them were in the same room in the sub-jail for about two or three days and there was every opportunity for collaboration and comparison of notes with a view to come out with a consistent and continuous narration of the events.
18. According to the prosecution P.W 1 met his fellow conspirators at Krishnan's house, the Majestic Home, the Taj Hotel and the house of accused 1. Krishnan's wife P.W 4, the proprietors of Majestic Home P.W 3 and of Taj Hotel P.W 11 have been examined. None of them say they ever saw P.W 1 in the company of any of the accused at any time. P.W 4 gives evidence that accused 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 used to visit her husband during 1959 and 1960. The evidence of P.W 11 the manager of the Taj Hotel is that he is an acquaintance and friend of Krishnan and that Krishnan used to visit his hotel often. He further stated that in January and February 1961 accused 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 used to come to the hotel in the company of Krishnan and Krishnan introduced them to him. They used to take coffee and then spend some time in the open verandah upstairs as is usual with the customers. When cross-examined he was unable to say, which accused came with Krishnan on which date and on how many occasions they came. There is no register in his hotel noting the name of his customers and it is quite unlikely that he could remember and correctly identify persons who were casually introduced to him by Krishnan. Even if their evidence is accepted in its entirety it would indicate nothing more than the fact that Krishnan and some of the accused were friends. In the absence of evidence to show that P.W 1 was ever in their company, the vital link is lost and the story of P.W 1 that he and the others met in furtherance of their conspiracy to counterfeit currency notes cannot be said to have been corroborated. The defence contention is that these witnesses are swearing to a false case at the instance of the police. It is alleged that the services of P.W 4 were obtained by the police by deliberately refraining from searching her house even though her husband had been the ring leader of the conspiracy. As for P.W 11 the allegation is that, he was made to give evidence under the threat that otherwise he would find himself an accused in the case. He is admittedly a close friend and associate of Krishnan and some of his properties were being looked after by Krishnan. That he was very anxious to dissociate himself with the conspiracy is clear from the fact that while his version before the police was that he heard Krishnan saying that good notes can be printed only if costly things are purchased he denied in court of having been aware that the object of the meeting was to plan the counterfeiting of currency notes. Corroboration is also attempted for the purchase of the press. P.W 6 is the person who sold a treadle printing press to accused 3. He swears that the sale was made at the instance of P.W 2 and though the actual price paid was Rs. 550/- he was asked to put down the price in the sale deed as Rs. 1,500 to enable accused 3 to sell it for a higher price. According to him the sale was effected on 12th February, 1960 and Ext. B14 is the sale receipt. Accused 3 who is a press owner admits having purchased the treadle press for his use from P.W 6 but according to him the purchase was in 1959 December and the sale receipt was changed with a view to suit the prosecution case that the press was purchased in pursuance of the conspiracy to print counterfeit currency notes. The defence suggestion is that the police managed to get at P.W 6 who is only a low-paid composer in the press by threatening to implicate him in the counterfeit case. In support of the allegation that Ext. P. 14 is not the original sale deed the defence points out a correction in the document. In the date given under the signature of P.W 6 the figure ‘6’ in 1960 is an overwriting on the figure ‘5’. In view of the correctly given date in the body of the document this can ordinarily be considered as merely due to a bona fide mistake. However, since we find a corresponding correction in another connected document (Ext. P. 11) and in view of some significant admissions by P.W 6 and P.W 1 it seems to us that the defence contention is not entirely baseless. P.W 6 at first stated that the sale of the press was fixed up in 1959 December and the sale was effected five or six days later though the mistake was corrected and he was made to say that it was the talk between P.W 1 and himself for the sale of the press that took place in December 1959 and not the agreement of sale with accused 3. Similarly from the sequence of events given by P.W 1 the time when he was informed by Krishnan that a press had been purchased would be towards the end of January and not the middle of February as shown in Ext. P. 14.
19. According to the prosecution the press was taken to the house of Krishnan and kept in the Urakkalam there till it was removed a fortnight later to the house of accused 7. Corroboration is sought for in the evidence of P.W 4 Krishnan's widow. She swears that she seems to remember (she is not sure of it) that some time in February of 1960 accused 1, 3 and another brought some thing wrapped in gunny bags and kept in her Urakkalam. Her husband was then in the house. She asked him what it was and he told her they were parts of a car. As already observed she cannot be considered a disinterested witness and even if her evidence is accepted it only shows that some things wrapped in gunny bags were taken to her Urakkalam and kept there for about two weeks.
20. Next, we come to the purchase of paper, printing ink, letterpress, varnish, paste drier, etc. These materials are alleged to have been purchased by accused 3 and 9 from Valavi and Co., Ernakulam and General Paper Company, Trivandrum on 16th March, 1960 and 17th March, 1960. The bills for the purchase do not contain the name of the purchaser and the identification of the accused by persons who had no previous acquaintance with the accused and who met them for the first time casually at the time of sale along with so many other customers cannot be taken as positive. In the absence of a proper identification parade no weight could be attached to this evidence.
21. The next incident is the removal of the press from the house of accused 7 to the house of accused 4 and the dealwood box containing paper, ink, etc., to the shop of accused 2 in June. The witness who is cited to corroborate 1 the evidence of P.W 2 is P.W 12 the driver of the car in which the press is alleged to have been removed. Accused 1 has a car which was used on the former occasions for the transport of the press and there is no reason why another car had to be hired. P.W 12 is the driver of a taxi at Neyyattinkara who says that he came to be engaged by acused 3 when he was just halting at the Thampanoor station after taking some patient to the women and children hospital. It is the definite case of the accused that he is the driver of an uncle of P.W 26 the Sub-Inspector of Police though that fact is denied by him. Apart from the strange circumstance that a taxi from Neyyattinkara came to be engaged at Trivandrum there is a material contradiction in his evidence which indicates that he could not have been engaged at all. According to the case diary statement he started from the Thampanoor station at 10 p.m whereas in court he would say that he was engaged by 8.30 and he returned by 10.30 p.m Even if his earlier version is taken to be a mistake, his evidence in court does not tally with the prosecution case which is that accused 3 after engaging the taxi at Tampanoor went to the house of P.W 2 at Kunnukuzhi and after picking him up went to the house of accused 7 at Aryanad. There they dismantled the press and went back to Trivandrum where they unloaded the press at the house of accused 4 at Anayara and the dealwood box at the shop of accused 2 at Chalai. The total distance covered, according to P.W 12 himself is sixtyfive miles. It is doubtful indeed whether all this could be accomplished within the time stated by the witness. The witness himself has ruled out the possibility of any mistake as he has stated that the car was fitted with a meter and a watch. It may also be noted that no trip sheet or other records regarding trips made by the taxi have been produced.
22. P.W 17 another taxi driver who was cited to prove that the press was removed in his car from accused 4's house to Pallithura did not support the prosecution case and had to be treated as hostile. Moreover P.W 2 had stated that this trip was done in the car of accused 1.
23. The next important item of corroboration is alleged to be the execution of Ext. P. 11(a) pro-note. The pro-note is one executed by accused 3 to Krishnan and endorsed by the latter to accused 2. The prosecution case is that the note is connected with counter-feiting transaction and that it came to be executed by accused 3 since the money entrusted to him for the purchase of the press became useless and was endorsed to the accused 2 to secure the money advanced by him for the purchase of the press. The note bears the date 2nd April, 1960. The case of accused 3 is that the note had no connection with the counterfeiting venture. He states that he purchased a press from P.W 6 and re-sold it to Krishnan. After some time Krishnan reported that the press was useless and wanted the money back. On 2nd February, 1960, Krishnan took him in a car to his estate on the pretext that the ink-well of press needed repairs. On the way Krishnan forced him on pain of death to execute a pro-note for the sale amount. The endorsement by Krishnan in favour of accused 2 is explained by accused 2 as being done to cover money borrowed by Krishnan from accused 2. The defence further alleges that the date of the note has been corrected into 2nd April, 1960 to fit in with the prosecution case. It must be said that this case of the accused is fully establised by the note itself. The correction can be seen both in the body of the note where the word February has been corrected to April and on the stamp where the figure ‘2’ has been scrached out and ‘4’ written. The prosecution admits that it is a correction but according to them the correction was made by accused 3 himself at the instance of P.W 16 at the time it was executed. P.W 16 is the branch post-master at Chullimanoor. He came out with the fantastic statement that on 2nd April, 1960 at the dead of night Krishnan and accused 1 to 5 went to his place, woke him up to purchase stamps for executing a pro-note and that there was a talk of accused 3 taking the press, which was purchased for the purpose of printing counterfeit two-rupee notes to himself after its use and executing a pro-note for Rs. 1,400/-. P.W 16 would have it that after the note was signed and dated by accused 3 it struck him that the correct date was 2nd April, 1960 and not 2nd February, 1960 and he himself made the correction in the stamp and asked accused 3 to make the correction in the body of the note and he did so. The explanation is false on the face of it. There is no reason why a person who executed a note in April should give the month as February. Moreover there is clinching evidence in the case to prove that the correction was made only after the note came into the hands of the police. In Ext. P. 20 search list regarding the search of the shop of accused 2 the date of the note is first put as 2nd February, 1960 and then corrected into 2nd April, 1960. P.W 26 Sub Inspector would admit that he made the correction but according to him the correction was made then and there when he realised the mistake. This cannot be true because Ext. D13 the certified copy of Ext. P. 20 produced by the defence gives the date as 2nd February, 1960 and it conclusively proves that the correction was made even after the record was produced in court and a true copy given. The Sub Inspector attempts to explain matters by saying that the date in the copy of the pro-note filed along with the remand application might not have been corrected and the certified copy might have been prepared from it. The learned Sessions Judge himself was not prepared to accept that explanation and has come to the conclusion that the correction was made after the document was produced in court. However the learned Sessions Junge seems to have not realised the real significance of the correction. If the pro-note was executed on 2nd February, 1960 not only could it have had no connection with the press which was bought only on 12th February, 1960 but the defence story that the press was bought in December 1959 will also guin strength thereby upsetting the entire sequence of the prosecution story, for if the press was not bought on 12th February, 1960 the evidence of the approvers and corroborating witnesses which is based on that fact will be revealed as false. In whatever way one views this attempt to introduce false evidence, one is left with, the feeling that the prosecution was not overburdened with good faith.
24. We shall now advert to the evidence afforded by the various searches and recoveries. After an ineffective search in the house of accused 1 at Poovar during the night of 4th March, 1961 P.W 27 proceeded to the house of accused 3 and made a search. Ext. P. 23 is the search list prepared by him and Exts. P. 2, P. 14 and P. 24 letters are said to have been recovered from inside a table in a room in the house. The 3rd accused asserted that he was taken along when the Circle Inspector of Police went for effecting the search and attacks the search and recovery as spurious. The column in the search list with the heading “whether the house owner attended the search” is significantly left blank. The search list also does not show from where the documents were taken and who took them or produced them. The attestors P.Ws 14 and another Prabhakaran who is not examined are not residents of the locality and were taken by P.W 27 from a distance of 3½ miles when he proceeded to the house of accused 3. P.W 14 admitted that throughout the search he was standing in the verandah outside and he saw the documents for the first time only when they were brought out to the verandah for the preparation of the mahazar. An unsuccessful attempt was made by the prosecution in re-examination to explain away these damaging admissions but they did not succeed in making the witness say that he saw the letters being recovered or produced by the accused from inside the house from the table. As the evidence of the attestor serves no useful purpose the only evidence in support of the search is that of P.W 27 the Circle Inspector who effected the search. There is no harm in the police officer who makes the search being called as a witness at the trial but in this case in view of the unfair and suspicious feature in the investigation of the case it is neither safe nor desirable to act upon his uncorroborated testimony in respect of the search and recovery. Ext. D25 the remand application presented by the Circle Inspector to the Magistrate on the 6th only makes a general statement about the recovery of incriminating documents at the search without specifying them. The records alleged to have been recovered are Exts. P. 2, P. 14 and P. 24. Of these Ext. P. 24 remains unproved. Ext. P. 2 is a letter alleged to have been written by Krishnan to accused 9 and handed over to accused 3 for getting the blocks entrusted by him. There is no reference to the blocks. It is the definite case of the accused that the Vijayan referred to there is a cousin brother of the wife of Krishnan and P.W 4 admits that she has a cousin brother by name Vijayan. Ext. P. 14 is the sale deed for the press in favour of accused 3. Accused 3 admits the purchase of the press and the sale deed, but that Ext. P. 14 was substituted for the original deed with the changed date to fit in with the prosecution case. That aspect of the case has been already dealt with by us.
25. The next search was in the house of accused 8 conducted in early hours of 5th March, 1961. The search list is Ext. P. 27 and it is noted there that one block and three broken pieces of another block were taken from the eaves of the house of the eighth accused by his son Nagappan at the instance of the eighth accused. This search is also not attested by any neighbours though it is admitted that there are several respectable inhabitants in the immediate neighbourhood. The attestor P.W 19 an advocate is a friend and neighbour of P.W 27 who was taken along with him to the place. According to P.W 19 only one block and three cut pieces of the block were recovered and all of them were produced by Nagappan from the eaves of the house as noted in Ext. P. 27. However it is significant that in Ext. D25 the remand report made by P.W 27 after conducting all the searches it is noted that besides the complete block and three pieces of blocks referred to in the search list another rectangular bit was also recovered from the house of Nanu Asari. It is significant to note that the words, “a rectangular bit was also recovered from the house” were written after erasing what was originally written in the report. Ext. D24 the certified copy of the remand report obtained from court by the accused shows that what was originally written there was “another cut piece of a block was recovered from a box in the house of Nanu Asari at Neyyattinkara.” The prosecution has no case that a fourth bit was recovered from a box inside the house. When Ext. D24 the certified copy was shown to P.W 27 he had to admit that was what he wrote originally but added that he happened to write that confusing the recovery of some letters the same day from a box in the shop of accused 8 and he happened to make the correction then and there when he became aware of the mistake. When the matter was pursued and it was definitely suggested to him that the correction was made after the record was produced in court he came out with the explanation that he might have forgotten to make the correction in the duplicate copy sent along with the original and the certified copy must have been prepared with reference to that copy. The truth of this suggestion could best have been proved by the production of the duplicate, but no such record is available. The explanation for making the mistaken entry as well as the explanation offered for the difference in the entry in the original remand report and the certified copy supplied from the court do not appear to be acceptable. The defence would contend that the confusion and the corrections are the result of an attempt on the part of the prosecution to distribute the materials they happened to come by at several places with a view to rope in all the accused. Whatever that be, we should say, that we are not satisfied with the manner in which the record was prepared and the subsequent correction made in it at whatever stage it was done. P.W 19 is no doubt a practising advocate and in the normal course his evidence should have carried weight with the court. However in view of the fact that several other respectable gentlemen including advocates were available in the locality, the conduct of P.W 27 in taking along with him a friend and neighbour of his from near his house, taken along with the suspicious nature of the records makes it difficult for us to act upon it. The recovery does not attract Section 27 of the Evidence Act as the eighth accused was not in police custody at that time and his alleged conduct in pointing out the place where the blocks were kept or his instruction to his son to hand them over to the police even if true cannot conclusively indicate that he had kept the blocks there. It is equally possible that he was aware of some mischief played by his son and was only instructing him to hand over the blocks to the police. Admittedly the eighth accused was in bed unable to move about and as such it cannot be said that the blocks were recovered from his possession and that was the main circumstance which contributed to his acquittal. From the house of accused 8 the search party proceeded to the press owned by him. The prosecution case is that the eighth accused after the search of his house directed his son Nagappan to go to the press and Nagappan accordingly accompanied the Circle Inspector to the press and took out Exts. P. 26, P. 28 and P. 29 letters from a table. Ext. P. 30 search list does not indicate that the search was conducted in the presence of the owner or anybody to represent him, nor does it indicate from where the letters were taken or by whom. It is also significant that in Ext. D. 25 remand report filed by the Circle Inspector which refers to the various searches and recoveries made that night no reference is made to the search of the press or the recovery of the letters. The letters recovered purport to be letters written by accused 4 to accused 8 or to accused 8 and his son Nagappan. The letters were not proved to have been written by accused 4 and two of the letters do not bear any date at all. The letter in the inland letter form alone appear to be dated 24th February, 1961 and there is nothing in the letters to indicate that they refer to any arrangements for printing currency notes.
26. The recovery of the press from Pallithura from an open compound belonging to a sister of the fourth accused may now be considered. The prosecution has no consistent case regarding this recovery. While Ext. P. 25 the mahazar recites that the recovery was effected on the information given by accused 1, P.W 27 gives evidence that it was the joint information given by accused 1 and accused 4 that led to the recovery. The latter version appears to be more probable. The first accused was arrested at Poovar on 4th March, 1961 during the night and according to P.W 27 the information that the press was buried in the compound of accused 4's sister at Pallithura was given by him immediately after the arrest. If that is true there seems to be no reason for having waited till 6 p.m on 5th March, 1961 to effect the recovery. The fourth accused was arrested only at 4.45 p.m and it is only then that they proceeded to the place with both the accused to effect the recovery. When a fact is discovered in consequence of information received from one of several persons charged with an offence and when others gave like information it is not possible to treat the discovery as having been made from any one of them. The use of the word “a person” in singular in Section 27 is not without significance. It appears that the word was used in singular designedly because the joint statement of a number of persons cannot be said to be information received from any particular one of them.
27. The next search was conducted in the shop of the second accused on 7th March, 1961. Ext. P. 20 is the search list. This search was conducted without obtaining the warrant from the Magistrate. It is a common feature of all the searches made in this case that not one of them was conducted after obtaining a warrant from the Magistrate. True, the explanation that as delay would defeat the purposes of the search, might be valid in the first two searches made in the night of 4th March, 1961, but such an explanation is not available in the case of this search. The second accused was arrested at 6 a.m, on 7th March, 1961 and the search was conducted only at 6.45 p.m In Ext. P. 20 search list, item 17 is Ext. P. 11 pro-note the date of which was corrected from 2nd February, 1960 to 2nd April, 1960 of which detailed reference has been made earlier. This tampering with the record also tarnishes the search and recovery. P.W 10 is the attestor who is cited to prove the search. He is one living three or four miles off the place and there is no reason why he should have been preferred when many neighbours were admittedly available in the locality. A definite suggestion was made to the witness that he is related to the Sub Inspector though that fact was denied by him. The willingness of the witness to fall in with the evidence of the Sub-Inspector that the correction in the date of the note was made by the Sub-Inspector then and there is sure indication that he is prepared to go to any extent to oblige the police.
28. The next search is of accused 9's house from where Exts. P. 8 to P. 10 and P. 22 and P. 22(a) letters are alleged to have been recovered. That search was effected on 13th March, 1961 and the search list is Ext. P. 21. In this case also there does not seem to be any justification for a search without warrant. This search is also not attested by any witness of the locality and the evidence of P.W 13 cited to prove the search indicates that when he went near the gate of the house of the nineth accused he found the police jeep already there and the policemen inside. According to him the police went inside and returned after three-fourth of an hour and he was all the time waiting at the gate. The admission of the nineth accused that some letters were taken from a wire which was hanging on the verandah would not prove the prosecution case that these five letters were recovered from inside the house. Three of the letters are written by Krishna Panicker and the other by accused 4. None of the letters contain any reference to the printing of currency notes.
29. The search in the house of accused 7 may be considered next. It was conducted on 14th March, 1961 and Ext. P. 19 is the search list. M.O 2 series (six blocks) are alleged to have been taken by accused 7 from inside a table the key of which was handed over by his wife. The presence of the accused or the fact that his wife handed over the key of the table is not mentioned in the search list (Ext. P. 19). P.W 27 admits that though as early as 5th March, 1961 he got information that an attempt at printing counterfeit notes was made in the house, he did not care to visit the place or to make a search. It looks as if police were waiting to arrest the accused before searching his house. It is significant to note in this connection that the seventh accused is referred to in the First Information Report as Gangadharan of Poonthurai and in the charge-sheet filed after completing the investigation he is stated to be running a tea shop at Poonthura. There is no mention that he was residing at Aryanad where the house searched is situated. P.W 9 the attestor to the search would admit that the house was lying vacant for four or five months preceding the recovery. There is no reliable evidence that this house was ever in the possession of the seventh accused and the belated recovery appears to be suspicious. It is significant that even in the case of this search which was leisurely conducted the police did not care to obtain a warrant from the Magistrate.
30. Before we leave this part of the case we are compelled to make a few observations in general about the searches conducted in the case. It is strange that all the searches were conducted at night though some of them could more conveniently have been done during day time. Though there is nothing in law that prohibits searches being carried out during night, it is best that when not inconvenient they should be conducted during day time so as to avoid any complaint on the part of the accused that there was room for unfair practices like ‘planting’ articles. Again even in cases where there was no hurry to conduct searches they have been carried out without obtaining the necessary warrant. Where lack of time is not a consideration, search without warrant is not proper and the recovery would itself come under suspicion. Also in spite of the fact that respectable neighbours of the locality were available to witness the search invariably people from a distance were taken along to witness the search. Where respectable persons can be found in the neighbourhood and the police officer making the search takes with him persons who come from a distant locality the door if left open for the charge that he was prompted by a desire to have such witnesses as would be easily persuaded to support any story which he might put forward.
“S. 103 Criminal Procedure Code was enacted to ensure fair dealing and a feeling of confidence and security amongst the public in regard to this necessary invasion of a private right regarded as most sacred. In order to give effect to this object it is necessary that the persons selected should be unprejudiced and uninterested in the result of what they have to take part in”. — Vide In re Rajabather (A.I.R 1959 Madras 450).
31. It is now settled law that non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 103 and 165 of the Code will not vitiate the trial or make evidence of the search officer inadmissable in evidence as was held by this Court in Velayudhan v. State (1960 K.L.T 753 : 1960 K.L.J 842). However these salutory provisions are intended to be faithfully observed. It is one thing to say that non-compliance with the provisions of the Code will not vitiate a trial and entirely different to say that these provisions may be ignored. If the provisions are contravened without proper justification there is the possibility of the search and the recovery being viewed with suspicion and courts may refuse to act upon the solitary evidence of the investigating officer.
32. The learned counsels for the accused characterised the investigation as unfair and referred to a series of circumstances. Though we do not think it necessary to go into all the instances, one or two of the more important points may be referred to. The non-examination of Bhuvanendran who gave the first information in the case is a serious omission. The learned Sessions Judge himself has observed that it would have been better if Bhuvanendran was examined so that the court would have known how much of his information was from his personal knowledge and how much was gathered otherwise. Being himself an accused in another counterfeit case he could very easily implicate his enemies. Unless he is in the box to be examined the information alleged to have been conveyed by him to P.W 27 is mere hearsay. He was cited in the charge sheet as a witness and is seen to have been present in court on more occasions than one and no satisfactory explanation is offered for withholding his evidence. In the nature of this case we feel that he is a witness who is essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based and as such a material witness. In the words of Sarkar J. in Narian v. State of Punjab (A.I.R 1959 S.C 484):
“When he (a material witness) is deliberately unfairly kept back then a serious reflection is cast on the propriety of the trial itself and the validity of the conviction resulting from it may be open to challenge.”.
33. Similarly the failure to search the house of the ring-leader, the deceased Krishnan who was accused 2 in the first Information Report is characterised as a deliberate attempt to fabricate evidence. This contention is also not without force. P.W 4 the widow was only too willing to oblige the prosecution by giving evidence since they had obliged her. Krishnan her husband was friendly with the block maker N.S Nair and there is no knowing whether the house of Krishnan did not contain some blocks. If on search, blocks or other incriminating materials were found in the house of Krishnan after his death, then P.W 4 the widow would have had to answer for their possession in which case she would not have been available for proving the letters alleged to have been written by her husband. As P.W 4 was willing to oblige the police by supplying the missing links they did not take the trouble of getting the handwritting compared by an expert or making some admitted handwriting available to the court for comparision.
34. Attempts to introduce false or doubtful evidence appear to be a, special feature in the investigation of this case. No doubt counterfeiters are pests of society and any attempt at exterminating them with an iron hand will be commendable, but the theory of “the end justifying the means” is not to be followed by Police Officers in the collection of evidence even though it may be extremely difficult to get really clever criminals convicted by honest investigation. Investigating Officers will do well to keep in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in R.P Kapur v. State Of Punjab. (A.I.R 1960 S.C 866):
“Investigation into criminal offences must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may lead to grievance of accused that investigation is carried on unfairly or with ulterior motive. The administration of criminal justice requires that every act done by the agency responsible for the investigation of crime must be fair, upright and free from any fault of any sort.”
35. We are constrained to remark that the investigation in this case has not impressed us as fair or free from faults. In view of the many suspicious features in the investigation of the case and the want of legal evidence we are compelled to acquit all the accused. The evidence of the approvers is naturally tainted and the evidence adduced by way of corroboration is even more tainted. The effect is but to doubly reinforce the taint. We feel that there is a substratum of truth in this case and that in all probability some of the accused before us are guilty. While realising our duty to disengage the truth from the falsehood, we find it extremely difficult to do so in this case as the very foundations of the prosecution are shaken by the introduction of false evidence.
36. In the result the appeals by the accused are allowed and their convictions set aside. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are set at liberty. The appeal and the revision filed by the State are dismissed.