Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The High Court has persuaded itself by a process of judicial activism in reverse gear, that making of such counterfeit notes is not an offence under Section 489A of the Indian an Penal Code (I.P.C.) and that having in posses- sion such counterfeit currency notes is not an offence under Section 489C of the I.P.C. Such a view has been taken even though there is nothing in the language of these sections to warrant Such an interpretation as will become evident presently.

1. Judgment and Order rendered by the Kerala High Court in Cr.R.P. 263 of 1975 on November 17, 1976, giving rise to the present appeal by certificate of fitness under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.

Facts: The six respondents herein were charged with offences punishable under Sections 120B, 489A, 489B and Section 420 read with Sections 511 and 34 IPC. The prosecu- tion case against them was that in furtherance of a conspir- acy entered into by accused nos. 1 to 4 to forge and coun- terfeit American dollar notes of 20 dollar denomination, they indulged in counterfeiting by printing 2000 such notes. Respondents 1 and 2 were further alleged to have been in possession of 148 forged currency notes knowing the same to be forged, with intent to use these forged notes as genuine. The respondents were committed by the Magistrate to stand their trial before the Sessions Court, for offences, under Sections 120-B, 487A and 489C read with Sections 511 and 34 IPC. It was contended by the respondents-accused before the Sessions Court that a charge under Sections 489A and 489C of the IPC could be lawfully levelled only in the case of counterfeiting of'Indian' currency notes and not in the case of counterfeiting of 'foreign' currency notes. The conten- tion was upheld by the Sessions Court at the threshold of the trial and the accused were discharged. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court discharging the respondents, the petitioner (State of Kerala) filed a Revision Petition before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court by its order under appeal confirmed the order of discharge rendered by the Sessions Court holding that "in the absence of an expla- nation similar to that in the case of bank notes; Section 489A and the Sections that follow which relate to counter- feiting of currency notes do not apply to cases of counter- feiting of dollar bills." The petitioner thereupon filed an application under Article 134 (1)(c) of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. By its order under appeal, the High Court certified it as a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court as "the case involves considera- bly important questions of law as to whether counterfeit American dollar notes will fall within the purview of Sec- tions 489A and 489C of the Indian Penal Code." That is how the matter has come up before this Court.

Analysis: An analysis of Section 489A reveals that:--

(i) counterfeiting 'any' currency note or bank-note is an offence;

(ii) knowingly performing any part of the process of counterfeiting any currency note or bank-note is also an offence; and

(iii) the prohibition against coun-

terfeiting or performing such process applies to currency notes as also to bank-notes as defined by the explanation to Section 489A. And inasmuch as the aforesaid expression interalia means any engagement1 for the pay- ment of money to the bearer issued by or under the authority of any State or Sovereign power provided it is intended to be used as equiva- lent to or substitute for money the prohibi- tion also extends to counterfeiting etc. of currency notes of any other sovereign power. Outcome: This analysis reveals that the legislative embargo against counterfeiting envelops and takes within its sweep 'currency notes' of all countries. The embargo is not re- stricted to 'Indian' currency notes. The legislature could have, but has not, employed the expression 'Indian currency

1. A promise, obligation or other condition that binds. (See Collins Dictionary) note'. If the legislative intent was to restrict the parame- ters of prohibition to 'Indian currency' only, the legisla- ture could have said so unhesitatingly. The' expression 'currency note' is large enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of 'any' country. When the legislature does not speak of currency notes of India the Court inter- preting the relevant provision of law cannot substitute the expression 'Indian currency note' in place of the expression 'currency note' as has been done by the High Court. The High Court cannot do so for, the Court can merely interpret the section; it cannot re-write, recast or redesign the section. In interpreting the provision the exercise undertaken by the Court is to make explicit the intention of the legislature which enacted the legislation. In is not for the Court to reframe the legislation for the very good reason that the powers to 'legislate' have not been conferred on the Court. When the expression 'currency note' is interpreted to mean 'Indian currency note', the width of the expression is being narrowed down or cut down. Apart from the fact that the Court does not possess any such power, what is the purpose to be achieved by doing so? A Court can make a purposeful interpretation so as to 'effectuate'the intention of the legislature and not a purposeless one in order to 'defeat- 'the intention of the legislators wholly or in part. When the Court (apparently in the course of an exercise in inter- pretation) shrinks the content of the expression 'currency note; to make it referable to only 'Indian currency note', it is defeating the intention of the legislature partly inasmuch as the Court makes it lawful to counterfeit notes other than Indian currency notes. The manifest purpose of the provision is that the citizens should be protected from being deceived or cheated. The citizens deal with and trans- act business with each other through the medium of currency1, (which expression includes coins as also paper currency that is to say currency notes). It is inconceivable why the legislature should be anxious to protect citizens from being deceived or cheated only in respect of Indian currency notes and not in respect of currency notes issued by other sovereign powers. The purpose of the legislation appears to be to ensure that a person accepting a currency note is given a genuine currency which can be exchanged for goods or services and not a worthless piece of paper which will bring him nothing in return, it being a counterfeit or a forged currency note. Would the legislature in its wisdom and anxiety to protect the unwary citizens extend immunity from being cheated in relation to Indian currency notes but show total unconcern in regard to their being cheated in respect of currency notes issued by any foreign State or sovereign power?. In the modern age a tourist from a foreign country may bring from his own country into India currency to the extent permissible under the law in India. So also he may obtain foreign currency in exchange of Indian currency whilst in India provided he does so to the extent permissi- ble by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,