K. HASHIM versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 17-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

; 
K. HASHIM 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
NOVEMBER 17, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : 
Section 133-Evidence of an accomplice-Conviction based upon-
Corroboration requirement of-Explained, Section 114 of the Evidence Act. C 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 120 B-Conspiracy-Essence of-Scope and extent-Explained. 
Section 489A, 489C, 489D-Offence-Accused persons involved in D 
counterfeiting of VS currency notes-Bundles of counterfeit currency and 
printing ink, blocks etc. recovered on their disclosures-Held, expression 
currency notes covers currency notes of any country-Taking any part in 
the process, possession and knowledge that the currency notes are counterfeit, 
seizure of materials and tools-Punishable, Section 28 of the Indian Penal E 
Code. 
Appellants were accused of counterfeiting of US currency of 20 
dollars denomination. Several bundles of counterfeit US dollars were 
seized on their disclosures apart from printing ink and printing blocks. 
On the basis of the confessional statements of two co-accused turned F 
approvers the trial court recorded conviction. Appeals against the same 
to the High Court did not yield any fruitful result. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contended that acting on the approvers' evidences, 
corroboration on material particulars was necessary and there was no 
recovery in fact or in law. It was also contended that there was no 
independent witness and whatever the approvers said related to a period 
prior to the alleged commission of offence and the IO evidence relates 
to the subsequent period and as such there was ample chance of tutoring 
them. The evidence relating to the recovery was highly improbable. In 
G 
the absence of any claim that the alleged articles were genuine, it was H 
l 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
incumbent on the prosecution to prove that they were counterfeits. The 
reliance placed on expert's evidence is also without legal sanction because 
the expert was not examined to show that he had any expertise to say 
anything about the articles being counterfeited. Only one person was 
examined to prove the reports and he was not the author of the report 
B 
and, therefore, his evidence was really of no assistance to the prosecution. 
The effect of Explanation 2 of Section 28 IPC has not been considered 
in the proper perspective. The ink which was allegedly used for the 
purpose of counterfeiting was not seized from the appellants. 
The respondent contended that Explanation 2 of Section 28 is very 
C relevant. When the possession is of an article which is likely to be used 
in any part of the process of counterfeiting is proved the case is covered 
by Section 489A. As it was difficult for an independent expert to say 
whether the foreign currency was counterfeited, therefore, some of the 
seized articles were sent to a foreign expert and it would have been 
practically very costly for the expert to come and depose. The effect of 
D Section 293 of the Code has been kept in view by the trial Court while 
accepting the report as evidence. The charge against the accused persons 
was one of conspiracy and, therefore, in the background of what has 
been stated in Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 
'Evidence Act') the evidence of PW-1 is very relevant. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Some of the seized notes that were not produced in 
Court, prosecution has explained this by bringing on record the fact that 
some of the seized notes were sent for the expert's view. Of the two 
F 
reports, one of the persons who had given the report was not available. 
But the authenticity of the report has been established by the other 
expert who was acquainted with the signature. [11-B, CJ 
2.1. The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be 
G (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means 
to accomplish the object, (c) an agreement or understanding between 
two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely 
committed to cooperate for the accomplishments of the object by the 
means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in 
the Jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a 
H criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the 
( 
K. HASHIMv. STATE 
3 
""' 
offence is complete when the combination is framed. From this, it A 
-., 
necessarily follows tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.