STATE OF KERALA versus MATHAI VERGHESE & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 19-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ST A,-i:E OF KERALA 
A 
•V. 
y 
MATHAI VERGHESE & ORS. 
.NOVEMBER 19, 1986 
[M.P. THAKKAR ANDS. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, ss.489A to 489£-Whetherapplicab/e to"currency 
':' 
notes" other than "Indian Currency Notes"-Counterfeiting of or possession 
of counterfeit dollar bills or dollar notes- Whether offence under Indian Law. 
Indian Paper Currency Act 1822, s.2-'Currency Note'-Definition- c 
---~ 
Whether can be imported into ss.489A-489E, l.P.C. 
Words & Phrases-'Currency note'-Meaning of 
.... 
The respondents were charged with offences punishable under s.120B, 
489A, 489C and s420 read with ss.511 and 34 IPC for forging and D 
counterfeiting American dollar notes of 20 dollar denomination, by printing 
2000 such notes. Respondents l 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 accused-respondents contended before the Sessions Court that a E 
.:,-
charge node.-.. 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' current-y notes. The Sessions Court upheld the 
aforesaid contention and discharged the accused-respondents. The High 
Court also confirmed the aforesaid order of discharge. 
F 
l 
Allowing the appeal by appellant-State and remanding the case to ,the 
trial court, 
HELD: I. The High Court was wrong in holding that ss. 489A to 489E 
are not applicable to currency notes other than Indian currency notes and that 
counterfeiting of or possessing of counterfeit dollar bills or dollar notes is not G 
an offence under the Indian Law. Th~refore, the judgment and order of 
discharge rendered by the High Court are reversed and set aside. The matter 
will now go back to the trial court for proceeding further in accordance with 
r 
law. [325 F-326 CJ 
2.1 An analysis of s. 489A reveals that: (i) counterfeiting 'any' currency H 
317 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] l S.C.R. 
A 
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 counter-feiting or performing such process 
applies to currency notes as also to bank-notes as defined by the explanation 
to s. 489A. And inasmuch as the aforesaid expression interalia means any 
engagement for the payment of money to the bearer issued by or under the 
B 
authority of any State or Sovereign 11ower provided it is intended to be used as 
equivalent to or substitute for money the prohibition also extends to counter-
feiting etc. of currency notes of ani other soverign power. [321 D-G] 
c 
2.2 The expression 'currency note' under s. 489A 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 interpreting the relevant 
provision of law cannot substitute the expression 'Indian currency note' in 
place of the expression 'currency note'. When the expression 'currency note' is 
interpreted to mean only 'lndian.curicency note', the width of the expression is 
being narrowed down or cut down. [322 A-q 
D 
2.3 The court can merely inter?ret 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 legislature. It 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 court shrinks the content oJ the expression 'currency note', to make i 
E 
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 protecte1I from being deceived or cheated. The 
' 
citizens deal with and transact business with each other through the medium of t
currency. It is inconceivable why the legislature should be anxious to protect 
F 
citizens from being deceived or cheated only in respect of Indian currency . 
notes and not in respect of currency notes issued by other soverign powers. 
[322 B-322 F] 
2.4 To read the expression 'any currency note' to mean and referonly to 
'Indian cur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.