Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The prosecution case stated briefly is as follows : Accused 1 to 4 along with accused 5 and 6 who have been acquitted, were charged by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Police Establishment, Cochin for offences falling under Sections 489C, 489B and 420 read with Section 120B and 489B and 489C read with Section 511 I. P. C. The prosecution alleged that the six accused persons conspired together in room No. 41 of Nara-simhapuram Lodge at Alleppey. and at the surrounding places on 31-8-1969 and on 1-9-1969 with the object of committing acts falling under Sections 489C and 489B and 420 I. P. C., and entered into an illegal agreement with Pw 1 Ramanandan Sub-Inspector of Police /CBI/SPE/ Cochin who had posed himself as the son of a rich planter to exchange counterfeit currency notes of 2 rupee denomination for genuine notes of the same denomination. The agreement was that the accused would part with such counterfeit notes worth Rs. 75,000 in exchange for genuine notes of the same denomination worth Rs. 25,000.

Pw 1 had earlier met the 3rd accused at Pachalam near Ernakulam and had enquired of him if he could supply counterfeit notes in exchange for genuine notes. Pw 1 who had disguised himself as the son of a planter, told the 3rd accused that counterfeit notes were required for distribution among the employees of his estate towards their wages. 3rd Accused told Pw 1 that he was not possessed of any counterfeit currency but to his knowledge such false currency could be had from accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 who were residing at Alleppey. This interview between Pw 1 and the 3rd accused took place on 30-8-1969. As instructed by 3rd accused, Pw 1 went to Alleppey the next day and presented himself at the Narasimhapuram Lodge at about 7 p. m. 3rd accused was already waiting there and he took Pw 1 to room No. 41 of the Lodge where accused Nos. 1. 2. 4 and 5 were present. He introduced Pw 1 to them. 3rd accused then told Pw 1 that he had discussed the matter already with them and that further details could be talked over by Pw 1 himself. Pw 1 accordingly told the accused that he had come to purchase counterfeit notes. 5th accused then told Pw 1 that they had only counterfeit notes of 2 rupee denomination and they were prepared to exchange two such notes for one genuine note. Pw 1 then wanted them to show him specimen notes that they had. At the bidding of 5th accused 4th accused took out from the pouch of his belt a bundle containing about one hundred 2 rupee currency notes and handed them over to Pw 1 who on scrutiny found that they were counterfeit notes of good imitation. Pw 1 returned the notes and told the accused that he could raise Rs. 25,000 immediately if they were prepared to exchange at the rate of 3 counterfeit notes for one genuine. The accused thereupon went out of the room and conspired between them for some time and came back to the room and told Pw 1 that the offer was acceptable to them. It was suggested to Pw 1 that he should come the next day in the same room at about the same time with Rs. 25,000 and that the accused on their part would come with Rs. 75,000 counterfeit notes. Thus they parted.

8. In the case on hand the accused were attracted or lured into the crime by the police officer. He suggested to them the way to make easy money if they were able to procure some counterfeit currency notes. For three such notes he was prepared to pay them one genuine note. Thus the bargain was struck by which he promised to give them genuine notes worth Rs. 25,000 in return for counterfeit notes worth Rs. 75,000. As observed by the Supreme Court in Ramanam Singh v. Bihar State .

Whatever the criminal tendencies of a man may be, he has a right to expect that he will not be deliberately tempted beyond the powers of his frail endurance and provoked into breaking the law : and more particularly by those who are the guardians and keepers of the law. However regrettable the necessity of employing agents provocateurs may be (and this is unfortunately often inevitable if corruption is to be detected and bribery stamped out.) It is one thing to tempt a suspected offender to covert action when he is doing all he can to commit a crime and has every intention of carrying through his nefarious purpose from start to finish, and quite another to egg him on to do that which it has been finally and firmly decided shall not be done. The very best of men have moments of weakness and temptation, and even the worst, times when they repent of an evil thought and are given an inner strength to set Satan behind them; and if they do, whether it is because of caution, or because of their better instincts, or because some other has shown them either the futility or the wickedness of wrongdoing it behaves society and the State to protect them and help them in their good resolve : not to place further temptation in their way and start afresh a train of criminal thought which had been finally set aside.

They are witnesses procured by Pw 1 from the very inception- Of all the people in the locality why these Income-tax officers alone were pitched upon remains a mystery.

12. Even if their evidence is accepted in full, no offence is thereby established. What exactly was the conspiracy for? The accused were invited by Pw 1 into the scheme for trafficking in false currency and when the evidence of Pw 1 is eschewed on the ground that he is a "particepes criminis". we get only one party to the conspiracy. In respect of the conspiracy as such and the details connected therewith, we have only the statement of Pw 1 and that is unacceptable without effective corroboration. What Pws 3 and 4 swear to is the seizure of the bundles from the accused; as to what transpired before that they are not prepared to enlighten the court. The bundles as we have already seen were deceptive in their appearance and contents. The currency notes tagged on only on the top and at the bottom of each bundle. The rest of the bundle contained only blank paper cut into size of 2 rupee currency notes interspersed of course with a few more currency notes. Pw 1 also was not ready with the currency notes to the value of Rs. 25,000 as he had promised. Only a glance of the bundle was allowed to be had by the accused. Thus on either side the intention was only to before the other. Among the notes interspersed in the bundle there were only 5 counterfeit notes. The rest were genuine currency. From the person of the 3rd accused some notes were seized which were counterfeit. The accused were charged in the circumstances with cheating in that they cheated Pw 1 but that charge has rightly been found against by the courts below. How could there be any cheating at all? Two persons entering into an agreement to commit a crime and if one resiles from the agreement, could it be said that he has cheated the other? The conspiracy also must be found to have not been proved in the case. The alleged agreement was that Pw 1 would be ready with Rs. 25,000 worth genuine currency and that the accused should go to him with false currency notes to the value of Rs. 75,000. ready to exchange one for the other. But what the accused brought was blank paper cut into the size of 2 rupee currency notes and Pw 1 had not brought any notes at all. He only pretended to have brought the currency notes. Thus the offence if at all, had reached only the stage of preparation and had not proceeded further so as to reach the stage of indictable attempt. With respect to the charge that the accused, the 3rd accused in particular were found to be in possession of counterfeit currency notes the question would arise whether they were in such possession with the intention to use them as genuine. The prosecution must prove that they were in such possession knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit. In the case of the 3rd accused the notes were kept by him in his bag. He did not intend to exchange them for genuine notes. From the very fact that even at the time of the alleged transaction he had kept the notes in his own bag would lend strength to the contention that he had kept them in the belief that they were genuine notes. So also the few counterfeit notes recovered from the bundles, which were interspersed with a few genuine notes-That also would lead to the same inference that they were not conscious of the fact that some of the notes were counterfeit. There is also the broad aspect of the whole transaction that their intention if at all. was to pass on the counterfeit notes as counterfeit only and not as genuine notes. The offence is committed only when the false currency is distributed as if it is genuine currency. But here, even if the prosecution version is accepted, the parties were dealing with each other in the belief and with the knowledge that they were exchanging false currency for genuine. The representation, made by PW1 to the accused was that he wanted some counterfeit, notes to be distributed among his labourers towards their wages. Thus, the accused were approached by them for collecting false currency and the accused in their turn, tried to dupe or outwit him by supplying blank paper cut into size, looking like currency notes for outward purposes-Thus, it was tit for tat much ado about nothing. All that could be said about the case is that it was the maiden attempt of a young inexperienced struggling police officer to acquire the credit of having detected a crime. In that struggle he had himself to envisage and chalk out the crime and present it to the unwary accused in a camouflage. Masquerading might sometimes be necessary for detection of crimes. But when the crime itself is not born or originated, masquerading would look inappropriate and unbecoming of the investigating police. The police officer himself paving the way for the commission of the crime is unrighteous and ill-suited to the conditions of a civilized society.