Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Khushali and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1907)ILR29All141
AppellantEmperor
RespondentKhushali and anr.
Excerpt:
act no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), sections 230 and 420 - definition--'coin'--uttering false coin--cheating. - .....to the court of session for trial for an offence punishable under section 239 of the indian penal code, that is, for fraudulently delivering counterfeit coin with the knowledge that it was so. in our opinion, looking to the definition of the word 'coin' as given in section 230 of the indian penal code, a gold mohar of the reign of shahjahan cannot be deemed to be a coin, inasmuch as it is not used for the time being as money. the same, view was taken by the bombay high court in the case of regina v. bapu yadav and rama tulshiram (1874) 11 bom. h.c. rep., 172. in that case the court had to consider whether a coin of the time of the emperor akbar came within the definition of 'coin' as given in section 230 of the indian penal code. the learned judges held that it did not, as it was.....
Judgment:

Banerji and Aikman, JJ.

1. This is an appeal by the Local Government from an original order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri. Khushali and Jwala were sent up by the Police upon a charge of cheating, in that they passed to certain persons as genuine gold mohars of the time of Shahjahan silver rupees of that reign which had been gilt or in some way covered over with gold. The Magistrate, however, committed the accused to the Court of Session for trial for an offence punishable under Section 239 of the Indian Penal Code, that is, for fraudulently delivering counterfeit coin with the knowledge that it was so. In our opinion, looking to the definition of the word 'coin' as given in Section 230 of the Indian Penal Code, a gold mohar of the reign of Shahjahan cannot be deemed to be a coin, inasmuch as it is not used for the time being as money. The same, view was taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Regina v. Bapu Yadav and Rama Tulshiram (1874) 11 Bom. H.C. Rep., 172. In that case the Court had to consider whether a coin of the time of the Emperor Akbar came within the definition of 'coin' as given in Section 230 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judges held that it did not, as it was not a current coin. With this view we agree. We were referred to the case of Queen v. Kunj Beharee (1873) 5 N.W.P.H.C., Rep., 187. We think that case is distinguishable, as the coins in question in that case, namely, Kaldar and Jeypore mohars 'were still in circulation as a medium of exchange.' That cannot be said of the mohars of the reign of the Emperor Shahjahan. If the accused committed any offence, it was the offence of cheating and not an offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code, Although we do not agree with the learned Sessions Judge that it was not proved that the accused had passed the coins, the evidence to bring home guilty knowledge to them is so extremely meagre that we do not deem it right to order their retrial for the offence of cheating. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. The accused if in custody must be at once released.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //