{"id":233448,"date":"2001-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001"},"modified":"2018-02-16T09:03:00","modified_gmt":"2018-02-16T03:33:00","slug":"s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001","title":{"rendered":"S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS         \n\n     Dated: 5-11-2001\n\n                           Coram:\n\n      The Honourable Mr.  Justice M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM      \n\n CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3 of 1991    \n        and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 38,50,65 of 1991     \n                            ...\n<\/pre>\n
 S.Ramaswamy                            .. Appellant (A1) in      \n                                      C.A.3 of 1991\n\n  1. T.S. Kandasamy \n  2. S.V.Subramanian                 .. Appellants(A3 & A5)\n                                      in C.A. 38 of 1991\n\nA.L.Thirunavukarasu                .. Appellant (A2) in\n                                      C.A. 50 of 1991\n\nShenbagaraj                             .. Appellant (A4) in\n                                      C.A. 65 of 1991\n\n                           vs.\n State rep. by\n  Deputy Superintendent of  Police,\n  C.B.I., Madras.                     .. Respondent in all\n  the above  appeals.\n\n<\/pre>\n
Criminal Appeals against the Judgment dated 19.12.1990 in S.C.No.35
\nof 1988 on the file of the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
! For Appellant in  : Mr.S.A.Rajan
\n            C.A.3 of 1991
\n         For Appellants in  : Mr.K.Srinivasan
\n           C.A.38 of 1991
\n        For Appellant in   : Mr.M.Ravindran, S.C.\n<\/p>\n
           C.A.50 of 1991
\n        For Appellant in   : Mr.N.Paul Vasanthakumar
\n           C.A.65 of 1991
\n^ For Respondent   : Mr.E.Jacob R.Daniel,
\n                             Spl.Public Prosecutor
\n                             for C.B.I. Cases.\n<\/p>\n
                             …\n<\/p>\n
:                               COMMON JUDGMENT       <\/p>\n
        The appellants in the above appeals were convicted  for  the  offences
\nunder Sections  120-B,  255,  256, 257 and 259 I.P.C.  Challenging the  same,
\nRamaswamy (A1) has filed the appeal in C.A.  No.3 of 1991,    Thirunavukarasu
\n(A2)  has  filed  the  appeal  in  C.A.No.50  of  1991,   Kandaswamy (A3) and
\nSubramanian (A5) have  filed  the  appeal  in  C.A.    No.38  of  19  91  and
\nShenbagaraj (A4) has filed the appeal in C.A.  No.65 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Originally  along with the appellants, A6 and A7 were  tried for various
\noffences and ultimately, the trial Court acquitted A6  and A7  and  convicted
\nthe appellants  alone as under:(a) Ramaswamy (A1), the appellant in C.A.  3 of
\n1991, was  convicted for the offences under Sections 255 and 256 I.P.C.   and
\n sentenced  to  undergo R.I.  for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/-, in
\ndefault to undergo R.I.  for six months on each count.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Thirunavukarasu (A2), the appellant in C.A.No.50 of  1991,  was  convicted
\nfor the offences under Sections 256 and 257 I.P.C.   and sentenced to undergo
\nR.I.   for  3  years  and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00 0\/-, in default to undergo
\nR.I.  for six months on each count.\n<\/p>\n
(c) Kandaswamy (A3), the first appellant  in  C.A.    No.38  of  19  98,  was
\nconvicted for the offence under Section 255 I.P.C.  and  sentenced to undergo
\nR.I.   for  3  years  and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/-,  in default to undergo
\nR.I.  for six months.  Though he was tried for  the offence under Section 259
\nI.P.C., he was acquitted in respect of  that charge.\n<\/p>\n
(d) Shenbagaraj (A4), the appellant in C.A.No.65 of 1991,  was convicted  for
\nthe offence under  Section  259 I.P.C.  and sentenced  to undergo R.I.  for 3
\nyears and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/-, in  default to undergo R.I.   for  six
\nmonths.\n<\/p>\n
(e) Subramanian  (A5),  the  second  appellant  in  C.A.    No.38 of 1991, was
\nconvicted for the offence under Section 255 I.P.C.  and  sentenced to undergo
\nR.I.  for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/-, in default to undergo  R.I.
\nfor 6 months.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Though  all  the  appellants were convicted for the offence under Section
\n120-B I.P.C., no separate sentence was imposed upon  them.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The crux of indictment as against the appellants and   other  accused  is
\nthat  they entered into a criminal conspiracy between 198 3 and 1986 to print
\ncounterfeit Central Excise stamps to evade  Central Excise stamp duty payable
\non safety match boxes  using  film    negatives  and  printing  plates.    In
\npursuance  of  the  above  conspiracy,    Ramaswamy (A1), Kandaswamy (A3) and
\nSubramanian (A5) printed counterfeit  Central Excise  stamps  at  the  Offset
\nPrinting Press of Ramaswamy (A1).   Thirunavukarasu (A2) facilitated printing
\nof  counterfeit Central  Excise stamps by providing film negatives of Central
\nExcise band rolls  and from these film negatives, printing plates  were  made
\nfor printing  counterfeit Central Excise stamps.  Subramanian (A5) despatched
\nthese    Central Excise counterfeit stamps in the names of M\/s.Orient Paper
\nMart and M\/s.Rose Paper  Stores  through  M\/s.Southern  Roadways  Transport
\nCompany to   various   places  including  Kovilpatti  in  various  trips.
\nShenbagaraj (A4) took delivery of the counterfeit stamps sent by  Subramanian
\n(A5) and concealed the same in a secret  place.    Thereafter,    Shenbagaraj
\n(A4),  Raju (A6) and Sannasi (A7) distributed the counterfeit  Central Excise
\nstamps to various match factories in and around  Kovilpatti.\n<\/p>\n
5.  To prove these allegations, the prosecution examined P. Ws.1 to 24, filed
\nExs.P-1 to P-134 and marked M.Os.1 to 13.\n<\/p>\n
6.  On conclusion of trial, the appellants\/accused  were    questioned  under
\nSection 313 Cr.P.C.  and they denied their complicity in the crime.\n<\/p>\n
7.   On  appraisal  of  evidence  on  record,  the trial Court  convicted the
\nappellants in respect of the offences referred to above and acquitted  A6  and
\nA7.  Hence, these appeals by the appellants (A1 to  A5).\n<\/p>\n
8.   Mr.S.A.Rajan,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for the  first accused,
\nMr.M.Ravindran, the learned senior counsel appearing for  the second accused,
\nMr.K.Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the third and fifth accused
\nand Mr.Paul Vasanthakumar, the learned   counsel  appearing  for  the  fourth
\naccused  would  argue  at  length    pointing  out various infirmities in the
\nmaterials relied upon by the  prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
9.  In reply, Mr.E.Jacob R.Daniel, the learned Special  Public Prosecutor for
\nC.B.I.  Cases, would contend justifying the  reasonings given  by  the  trial
\nCourt for imposing conviction and sentence upon the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
10.   I  have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
\nfor both sides and perused the materials available  on record.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Before analysing the merits of the submissions made by   either  of  the
\nparties,  it  would be worthwhile to refer to the  important materials placed
\nby  the  prosecution  before  the  trial  Court,  which    would  reveal  the
\nchronological  events so that we can have a full  picture of the various acts
\ncommitted by the accused as well as instances involving the efforts  taken  by
\nthe  Investigating  Officers  to  collect  the  materials against the accused.
\nThese things are given below in  a nutshell.\n<\/p>\n
(a) Mr.Ragothaman,  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police,  C.B.I.,    Bangalore
\n(P.W.11)  was  investigating  the  Crime  No.R.C.32 of 1985  relating to fake
\nIndian Airlines tickets printed and sold in the open  market.  In  regard  to
\nthe  said  case, P.W.11 searched the premises of  Ramaswamy (A1) on 20.2.1986
\nand seized the materials including the  materials which are relevant for this
\ncase under Ex.P-31 search list,  namely, M.Os.6 to 9 four zinc sheet printing
\nplates containing the matter of Central Excise band  roll  along  with  M.O.10
\nnote book containing  the entries made by P.W.15 Ravi, an employee of A1 with
\nreference to    the  printing  of  counterfeit  Central Excise stamps.  P.W.9
\nInspector,  Income Tax Department, witnessed the search.  A1 was present  and
\nhe  signed in Ex.P-31 search list.\n<\/p>\n
(b)  On  knowing  the involvement of Kandaswamy (A3) in this  case, P.W.11 on
\n22.2.1986 between 7.00 A.M.  and 7.45 A.M.  went to  the  premises  of  A3  at
\nRoyapettah and seized various materials under Ex.P-32 search list.  As per the
\nsame,  Item  No.1  in  Ex.P-32  relates to  six sheets of Central Excise band
\nrolls and the same were marked as M.O.12 series.  Item No.2  relates  to  cash
\nmemo  sales  books of M\/s.Orient Paper Mart, Madras and the same was marked as
\nEx.P-65.  Item No.3 in Ex.P-32 is the  cash  bill  book  of  M\/s.Rose  Pa  per
\nStores, Madras  and    the  same  was  marked  as  Ex.P-66.    A3 was present
\nthroughout the search  and he signed in Ex.P-32 in  the  presence  of  P.W.10
\nSenior Personnel  Officer, Indian Airlines.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  On  further information that Thirunavukarasu (A2) is also involved in the
\ncrime, on the same day, i.e., 22.2.1986, P.W.11  searched the office premises
\nof Thirunavukarasu (A2) at Madras-1  between  7  .50  A.M.    and  8.30  A.M.
\nEx.P-33 is the search list.  A2 was present.  Item No.1 in Ex.P-33 is the film
\nnegative of  Central Excise band  roll containing 120 Nos.  and the same were
\nmarked as M.O.11 series.\n<\/p>\n
(d)  On  being  informed  by  P.W.11  Deputy  Superindent   of   Police,   the
\nSuperintendent  of  Police, C.B.I., Bangalore, sent a letter  dated 22.2.1986
\nto the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I.,  Economic    Offences  Wing,  Madras
\nincorporating the details of the seizures made from A1 to A3 and requested for
\ntaking action against the accused.  The said letter was marked as Ex.P-34.  On
\nthe   strength   of   Ex.P-34   letter,   P.  W.24  Baskaran  Thambi,  Deputy
\nSuperintendent of Police, registered a  case in Crime No.4 of 1986 against A1
\nto A3 for the offences under  Sections 120-B, 420 and 255 to 259, I.P.C.  The
\nF.I.R.  Is Ex.P-133.\n<\/p>\n
(e) After registering the F.I.R., P.W.24 Deputy    Superintendent  of  Police
\ninterrogated A1  and  A3.  On coming to know about the  involvement of A5 and
\nA7 who are the residents of Kovilpatti, P.W.24  went to Kovilpatti  with  his
\nteam for further investigation.\n<\/p>\n
(f)  On  24.2.1986,  P.W.24  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police  searched the
\npremises of A5 Subramanian at No.32, Soundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti in the
\npresence of  P.W.4  Venkataraman,  Inspector,    Central  Excise,  Kovilpatti
\nbetween 7.00 A.M.   and 7.30 A.M.  Ex.P-15 is the search list.  Throughout the
\nsearch, one Kotteeswaran, brother-in- law of A5 was present.  Four items were
\nseized.  Item No.2 is the  rubber stamp “For Orient Paper  Mart,  Proprietor”
\nand the same was marked  as M.O.5.  Item No.1 relates to three inland letters
\nand these were  marked as Ex.P-16 series.  The first letter was written by A3
\nto  A5  to   the residential address of A5 at No.32 Soundarapandian Street,
\nKovilpatti.  The second letter was also addressed to A5 to the  same  address.
\nThe  third  letter  was  written  by  A5  from  Madras to his wife at No.32 ,
\nSoundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti.\n<\/p>\n
(g) On the same day, P.W.24 Deputy Superintendent of Police  examined P.Ws.2,
\n3 and 8 and collected information with regard to  taking of delivery  of  two
\nparcels  in  gunny bags sent in the name of  Kalirajan by A5 and the same was
\ntaken delivery by A4 Shenbagaraj.   Therefore, P.W.24 on  the  same  day,  at
\n4.30 P.M.  arrested A4.  On the  basis of the confession given by A4, P.W.24,
\nin the presence of P.W.4  Venkataraman, recovered two gunny bags concealed in
\na  secluded  place,    the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P-17.
\nFrom these two  gunny bags (M.Os.1 and 3), yellow  and  blue  colour  Central
\nExcise  stamps (M.Os.2 and 4) were seized under Ex.P-29 mahazar.\n<\/p>\n
(h)  P.W.24  examined  P.W.15 Ravi, who was working in the  printing press of
\nA1.  He stated that on the instruction  given  by  his    employer  (A1),  he
\nprinted  the  counterfeit  Central  Excise stamps with the help of M.Os.6 to 9
\nzinc sheet printing plates brought by A3 and A5  and after the printing  work
\nwas over,  A3  and  A5  packed  and took  delivery of the same with them.  On
\nexamination of P.W.15, it was found  that the entries in  M.O.10  note  book,
\nwhich was seized from A1, were  found to be written by P.W.15.\n<\/p>\n
(i)  P.W.24  sent these M.Os.6 to 9 zinc sheet printing sheets seized from the
\npremises of A1, M.O.12 Central Excise band rolls  seized from the premises of
\nA3, M.O.11 film negatives seized from the  office of  A2  and  M.Os.1  and  3
\ngunny  bags  and  M.Os.2  and 4 yellow and  blue colour Central Excise stamps
\nseized from the premises of A4  for    scientific  analysis  and  examination
\nthrough requisition  Ex.P-67  dated  25  .3.1986.  P.W.20 Lakshminaraynan, an
\nExpert, sent his opinion Ex.P-68 on  29.7.1986  stating  that  M.Os.6  and  9
\nprinting plates  were  made    from  M.O.11 film negatives and M.Os.  2 and 4
\nyellow and blue colour  Central Excise stamps were forged ones and  the  same
\nwere made from M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates.\n<\/p>\n
(j)  Ex.P-65  cash memo sales book in the name of Orient Paper Mark was seized
\nfrom the house of A3 on 22.2.1986 by P.W.11.    Ex.P-66  cash  bill  book  of
\nM\/s.Rose Paper  Stores,  Madras  was  also seized  from his premises.  P.W.24
\nexamined P.W.18 Accountant working in M\/s. Orient Paper Mart, who stated that
\nEx.P-65 Bill Book did not belong to M\/s.Orient Paper Mark.  M.O.5, the  rubber
\nstamp  in  the name of M\/s. Orient Paper Mark was seized from the house of A5
\nSubramanian by P.W.24.  P.W.18 stated that  M.O.5  did  not  belong  to  their
\ncompany  and   similarly, P.W.24 examined P.W.19, a Partner of M\/s.Rose Paper
\nStores, who  stated that Ex.P-66 Bill book in  the  name  of  M\/s.Rose  Paper
\nStores  did not belong to their shop.\n<\/p>\n
(k) P.W.24  examined  P.W.17  Manager of Thangam Lodge,  Periamet.  He stated
\nthat during the relevant period, Subramnaian (A5) had   stayed  in  the  said
\nlodge.   As  per  the  entries  made in Exs.P-49 to 64,  Subramanian (A5) has
\ngiven his address as “32, Soundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti”.   Then,  P.W.24
\nexamined  P.W.21  Purushothaman,  who  was    working  in  Southern  Roadways
\nTransport Company, Chennai.  He stated  that parcels were sent with Exs.P-69,
\n71, 73,75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85,87, 89, 91, 93, 124 and  125  forwarding  notes,
\nwhich  contain  the    handwriting  of  Subramanian  (A5) for having sent the
\nparcels to various places including Kovilpatti.  P.W.24 sent  these  documents
\nfor  the  opinion    of  Handwriting  Expert  along with the signature of A5.
\nP.W.22  Handwriting Expert  in  Ex.P-129  dated  30.6.1986  opined  that  the
\nforwarding  notes were prepared and signed by A5.\n<\/p>\n
12.   On the basis of these materials, the prosecution  projected its case by
\nstating that A1 to  A5  entered  into  a  criminal    conspiracy  at  Madras,
\nKovilpatti  and  other places to print the counterfeit  Central Excise stamps
\nin the printing press of A1 using M.Os.6 to 9    printing  plates  made  from
\nM.O.11  film  negatives  provided  by  A2 and  despatched the same to various
\nplaces under the guise of paper bundles  sent by M\/s.Orient  Paper  Mart  and
\nM\/s.Rose  Paper Stores, Chennai to  evade Central Excise duty on safety match
\nboxes and thereby, they  committed the offences under  Sections  120-B,  255,
\n256, 257 and 259 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
13.   The  following  factors are brought to light by the  prosecution in the
\npresent case through various materials.\n<\/p>\n
(a) Ramaswamy (A1), Kandaswamy (A3) and Subramanian (A5)  printed counterfeit
\nCentral Excise stamps by using M.Os.6 to 9 printing  plates  made  by  M.O.11
\nfilm  negatives  supplied  by  Thirunavukarasu (A2) through P.W.15 Ravi in the
\noffset printing press of Ramaswamy (A1).    M.O.11  film  negatives  used  for
\nmaking  M.Os.6  to 9 printing plates  were seized from the office of A2 under
\nEx.P-33.  After making the  printing plates, namely, M.Os.6 to 9,  A1  to  A3
\nprinted  the  counterfeit  Central Excise stamps at the printing press of A1.
\nP.W.15 made entries about the printing work done in M.O.10 note book.   M.Os.6
\nto  9   printing plates and M.O.10 note book were seized from the premises of
\nA1  under Ex.P-31.  These factors have been spoken to  by  P.Ws.11  Deputy
\nSuperintendent of Police, P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.15 through whom M.Os.6  to 9,
\nM.O.11 and Exs.P-31 to P-33 were marked.\n<\/p>\n
(b) After the collection of the counterfeit Central Excise  stamps, A3 and A5
\nwere  sending  the  same  in  the name of M\/s.Orient  Paper Mart and M\/s.Rose
\nPaper Stores through Southern Roadways, Madras to  various  places  under  the
\nguise of paper bundles.  P.W.11 Deputy  Superintendent of Police on 22.2.1986
\nrecovered  Ex.P-65 cash memo sales  book in the name of M\/s.Orient Paper Mart
\nunder Ex.P-32 search list  from the house of A3.  He also  recovered  Ex.P-66
\ncash bill  book  of M\/s. Rose Paper Stores.  These exhibits, namely, Exs.P-65
\nand P-66 seized  from  the  premises  of  A3,  are  forged  ones.    P.W.18
\nChellaperumal  working  as  Accountant  in  M\/s.Orient Paper Mart and P.W.19
\nViyadut Ali Khan, a Partner of M\/s.Rose  Paper  Stores  would  speak  about
\nExs.P-65 and P-66 that they are not genuine.\n<\/p>\n
(c) P.W.24 Deputy Superintendent of Police in the presence  of P.W.4 searched
\nthe  house  of  A5 at No.32 Soundarapandian Street,  Kovilpatti under Ex.P-15
\nsearch list and recovered  M.O.5  rubber  stamp  ”  For  Orient  Paper  Mart,
\nProprietor”.  P.W.24 also seized some letters  Ex.P-16 series to show that A5
\nwas permanently  residing  in the said  address.  During the course of search
\nmade by P.W.24, one Kotteeswaran, brother-in-law of A5, was present.  A5  sent
\nthe  parcels through M\/s. Southern Roadways Transport Company through various
\nforwarding notes  Exs.P-69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, etc.    P.W.21  Purushothaman
\nworking in  the M\/s.Southern Roadways Transport Company would speak about the
\n handing  over  of  the  parcels by A5.  The handwriting contained in these
\nexhibits was also found to be the handwriting of A5 as per Ex.P-129   opinion
\ngiven by P.W.22 Handwriting Expert.\n<\/p>\n
(d) P.W.17 Satyam, Manager of Thangam Lodge, Periamet  identified the entries
\nmade  in  Exs.P-49  to 64 Lodge Attendance Registers  and stated that A5 came
\nand stayed in the lodge during the relevant  period  and  he  had  given  his
\naddress as “No.32, Soundarapandian Street,  Kovilpatti”.\n<\/p>\n
(e)  Using  Ex.P-12  lorry  receipt,  A5  sent  two  gunny bags  addressed to
\nKalirajan, Kovilpatti under the guise of paper bundles.    These  gunny  bags
\nwere  taken  delivery  from  P.W.2  Thirumalai Kumar, a  Clerk working in TVS
\nLorry booking office at Kovilpatti, by Shenbagaraj ( A4).  A4 signed  on  the
\nback of  Ex.P-12  lorry  receipt  as  Kalirajan.    P.W.8 on behalf of A4 took
\ndelivery of these gunny bags on the basis  of the signature of A4 in Ex.P-12.
\nOn 24.2.2986, P.W.24  Deputy    Superintendent  of  Police  arrested  A4  and
\nobtained his  confession.    Then, he identified the gunny bags containing the
\ncounterfeit Central Excise  stamps concealed near his house.  The  admissible
\nportion of  his    confession  is  Ex.P-17.  M.Os.1 to 4 were recovered under
\nEx.P-29 mahazar  in the presence of P.W.4.  M.Os.1 and 3 are the  gunny  bags
\nand M.Os.2  and 4 are the yellow and blue colour counterfeit Central Excise
\nstamps.\n<\/p>\n
(f)  After  recovery,  P.W.24  sent  Ex.P-67  requisition  to  P.W.20  Expert
\nforwarding the said M.Os.  for scientific analysis and  examination.   P.W.20
\nExpert,  after  examination,  gave  Ex.P-68  opinion on 29.7.1986 stating that
\nM.Os.2 and 4 the yellow and blue colour  Central    Excise  stamps  were  the
\ncounterfeit  Central Excise stamps and these  counterfeit stamps were printed
\nby using M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates  made from M.O.11 film negatives.\n<\/p>\n
14.  In the light of the above materials, it is contended by  the  prosecution
\nthat  the  conviction  imposed  upon  the  appellants  by  the trial Court is
\njustified.\n<\/p>\n
15.  Let us now discuss the various points raised by the  learned counsel for
\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n
16.  The contentions of Mr.S.A.Rajan, the learned counsel  appearing for  the
\nfirst accused, are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“The  evidence  of  P.W.9  mahazar  witness, P.W.11 Deputy  Superintendent of
\nPolice and P.W.15 Ravi, an employee of A1, are not  sufficient  to  base  the
\nconviction against  A1.    P.W.15,  though  was working  for some time in the
\nprinting press of A1,  left  the  service  and  when    he  came  back  again
\nrequesting for  job,  the same was denied.  Therefore, he was inimical towards
\nthe first accused.  He was not able to  state exactly as to how many times A3
\nand A5 visited the press.  He  stated that M.Os.6 to 9 were aluminium plates,
\nwhereas P.Ws.9 and 11 would state that they were  zinc  sheets.    Admittedly,
\nM.Os.6 to  9  were  not   seized when they were actually used.  Even assuming
\nthat M.Os.6 to 9  were seized from the press of A1, there is no  evidence  to
\nshow that  the accused had knowledge about these plates and that there were
\nattending materials used for printing the forged labels.”\n<\/p>\n
17.   These  contentions,  in my view, do not merit acceptance, in view of the
\nmaterials available as against the first accused in  abundance.  The evidence
\nof P.W.15, who was the employee of the first   accused,  is  so  natural  and
\ninspiring.   According to him, after  seizure of the materials, the press was
\nclosed and  therefore,  he  did  not    get  job  from  A1.     Under   those
\ncircumstances,  it  cannot  be concluded  that P.W.15 is inimical towards the
\nfirst accused.\n<\/p>\n
18.  On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.15 is fully  corroborated by  the
\nother materials.    According  to  him, under the  instructions of A1, he was
\nprinting the counterfeit Central Excise stamps by using M.Os.6 to  9  printing
\nplates, which  were  brought by A3 and A5.  Though the normal working hours of
\nthe press is only morning to  evening, P.W.15 was asked to do the  said  work
\nin the night  hours  between  8  .00  P.M.   and 3.00 A.M.  The work done was
\nentered in M.O.10 note  book by P.W.15.  This  was  seized  by  P.W.11  under
\nEx.P-31 search  list,    which was signed by A1.  The recovery of these M.Os.
\nWas spoken to by P.W.9 mahazar witness, who is an Income Tax Officer.\n<\/p>\n
19.  Furthermore, there is no suggestion put to P.W.11 that    the  signature
\nwas obtained  from  A1  out  of threat or coercion.   Moreover, P.W.20 Expert
\nwould state that the counterfeit stamps (M.Os.2 and 4) were printed  by  using
\nM.Os.6 to 9 printing plates, which were  recovered from the premises of A1.\n<\/p>\n
20.  In the absence of any reason to reject the evidence of  P.W.15, which is
\ncorroborated  by  other  materials,  it  is clear that A1, in pursuance of the
\nconspiracy, allowed A3 and A5 to print the  counterfeit Central Excise stamps
\nin his press.\n<\/p>\n
21.  In view of the above, the conviction imposed upon the  first accused for
\nthe offences under Sections 120-B, 255 and 256 I.P.C.  is correct.\n<\/p>\n
22.  Now, let us consider  the  submissions  made  by  Mr.M.  Ravindran,  the
\nlearned senior  counsel appearing for the second accused.   The following are
\nhis submissions:-\n<\/p>\n
“The case against A2 rests on the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11 only.  The search
\non the premises of A2 was conducted on 22.2.1986.     Prior  to  the  search,
\nP.W.11 conducted search in the house of A3.   Even without any statement from
\nA3 implicating A2, there is no reason as to why P.W.11 came to the house of A2
\non the  very  same  day,  that too, without obtaining any search warrant.  The
\nfirst search was  conducted on 20.2.1986 in the house of A1.  P.W.11 did  not
\ntake any  steps for two days for obtaining search warrant.  The search witness
\nP.W.10 is not an independent witness.  Admittedly, the house of A2 was situate
\nin a crowded locality.  P.W.11 did not call for two respectful    inhabitants
\nfor witnessing  the  search.  This is in violation of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C.
\nThere are contradictions with regard to the place of  search and  the  number
\nof articles  seized.    According  to P.W.10, six  articles were seized under
\nEx.P-33 from the Thozhirkoodam of A2.  But,  in Ex.P-33 search  list,  it  is
\nstated that  8 articles were seized at 1-A Angamuthu Naicken Street.  There is
\nno evidence with reference to   the  location  of  the  Thozhirkoodam.    The
\nevidence  of P.Ws.10 and 11  are contradictory with each other with reference
\nto the number of  articles seized.    Though  the  search  was  conducted  on
\n22.2.1986 revealing  the involvement of A2, there is no explanation as to why
\nA2 was    arrested  six  days  later (i.e.) on 28.2.1986.  In the fake Indian
\nAirlines tickets case in Crime No.32 of 1985, A2 refused to give evidence as
\nwitness and therefore, he has been implicated falsely in this case.”\n<\/p>\n
23.  The second accused has been convicted for the offences   under  Sections
\n120-B, 256 and  257  I.P.C.    Section  256  I.P.C.   relates to possession of
\ninstrument for counterfeiting Government stamp.   Section 257 I.P.C.   refers
\nto the making of the said instrument for counterfeiting Government  stamp.\n<\/p>\n
24.   According  to  P.W.11 Deputy Superintendent of Police,  he searched the
\npremises of A2 in the  presence  of  P.W.10  Indian    Airlines  Officer  and
\nrecovered M.O.11 film negatives containing 120 Central Excise band rolls under
\nEx.P-33 search list.  According to P.Ws.10  and 11, A2 was present throughout
\nthe search and he signed in Ex.P-33  search list and received the copy.\n<\/p>\n
25.   As  per Ex.P-68 opinion given by P.W.20 Expert, M.O.11  film negatives,
\nwhich were recovered from the premises of A2, were  used for making M.Os.6 to
\n9 printing plates through  which  M.Os.2  and  4    yellow  and  blue  colour
\ncounterfeit Central Excise stamps were printed.\n<\/p>\n
26.   According  to the prosecution, P.W.11 Deputy  Superintendent of Police,
\nC.B.I., Bangalore, came to Madras for investigating  the case in Crime  No.32
\nof 1985 relating to printing of fake Indian  Airlines tickets.  On 20.2.1986,
\nhe searched the premises of A1 and on 22 .2.1986, he searched the premises of
\nA3 and A2 and recovered  incriminating materials from the premises of all the
\nthree accused.\n<\/p>\n
27.   The  connecting  link has been brought to light through  the opinion of
\nP.W.20 Expert that M.O.11 film negatives recovered from  the  premises  of  A2
\nwere  the source for making M.Os.6 to 9 printing  plates through which M.Os.2
\nand 4 counterfeit Central Excise  stamps    were  printed.    Therefore,  the
\nrecovery  of  M.O.11  film  negatives  from   the premises of A2 assumes much
\nsignificance.\n<\/p>\n
28.  It is true that P.W.11 Deputy Superintendent of Police  did  not  obtain
\nsearch  warrant from the Court concerned before  searching the premises of A1
\nto A3.  This is  admitted  by  P.W.11  himself  in    the  cross-examination.
\nHowever,  P.W.11  would  state  that  before  searching the premises, he sent
\nadvance intimation to the Court concerned.   This is not  challenged  in  the
\ncross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
29.   On  the other hand, it is the evidence of P.W.11 that  after recovering
\nthe materials from the house of A1 under  Ex.P-31    search  list,  from  the
\npremises  of  A3 under Ex.P-32 search list and from  the premises of A2 under
\nEx.P-33 search list, the properties involved  in this case were sent  to  the
\nCourt concerned.   In view of the  compliance of the provision of Section 165
\nCr.P.C., it cannot be contended  that the search conducted in the premises of
\nA1 to A3 without search  warrant is illegal.\n<\/p>\n
30.  It is argued that two independent and respectful  inhabitants  from  the
\nlocality  were  not  summoned  to  witness  the search and  as such, it is in
\nviolation of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
31.  In the present case, P.W.10 K.R.Narayanan is the  mahazar witness.    He
\nis the resident of No.54 N.C.Colony, Chennai-61.  As  per Ex.P-33, the search
\nwas conducted  at  No.1-A  Angamuthu  Naicken  Street, Madras-14.  P.W.10 was
\nworking as Senior Personnel Officer,  Indian Airlines.  According to him,  he
\nwas the witness for the first time  for the search which was conducted in the
\npremises of  A2  on  22.2.1986.  Under those circumstances, merely because the
\nwitnesses from the  same street were not  called,  it  cannot  be  said  that
\nP.W.10 is not a  local, respectful and independent witness.\n<\/p>\n
32.  Ex.P-33  would  prove  the  incriminating materials.  Items 1 to 18 were
\nseized from the office of A2.  Some of the items were  seized from the drawer
\nof the office table kept in the front room, some of the items were seized from
\nthe office room and some other items  were seized from the property room.  It
\nonly shows that all the   properties  have  been  seized  only  in  the  same
\npremises  from different rooms  in the same address, namely, No.1-A Angamuthu
\nNaicken Street.  It is  shown in  Column  No.4  that  the  house  and  office
\naddress of A2 is No.1- A Angamuthu Naicken Street.\n<\/p>\n
33.  It is also noticed from Ex.P-33 search list that apart  from M.O.11 film
\nnegatives,  various  film  negatives  of currency notes, Thiruvallur Transport
\nCorporation tickets and aluminium plates   containing  the  matter  of  Entry
\nTickets  of International Airport Authority  of India were recovered from the
\npremises of A2.  This shows that P.W.11 Deputy Superintendent  of  Police  was
\nable  to  recover  other    properties  also,  while conducting search on the
\npremises of A2 in a case  relating to fake Indian  Airlines  tickets.    But,
\nthose  things  has not  been marked in this case as they would relate to some
\nother case.\n<\/p>\n
34.  In Ex.P-33 search list itself, it is mentioned in  Column No.6 that  the
\nsearch was  conducted under Section 165 Cr.P.C.  After observing all the legal
\nformalities, in Column No.7, it is stated    that  Thirunavukarasu  (A2)  was
\npresent  throughout  the  search  and  no  damage or injury was caused to the
\nperson or property during the search.\n<\/p>\n
35.  It is seen from Ex.P-33 search list that below the  signatures of P.W.11
\nDeputy Superintendent of Police and one Ramaraj,  Inspector of  Police,  CBI,
\nMadras,  P.W.10  K.R.Narayanan,  Senior Personnel Officer, Indian Airlines and
\none Rudramurthy, Superintendent, Indian  Airlines  signed  in  Ex.P-33.    The
\nsecond accused also put his  signature endorsing that he received the copy of
\nEx.P-33 search list.\n<\/p>\n
36.   So,  the  evidence  of  P.W.11  and P.W.10 would clearly  show that the
\nsearch was conducted in the premises of  A2  at  No.1-A    Angamuthu  Naicken
\nStreet in the office room and the property room and 18  items of which M.O.11
\nis  the film negatives were recovered and during  the search, A2 was present.
\nNo suggestion was put either to P.W.10  or to P.W.11 to the effect  that  his
\nsignature in  Ex.P-33  was obtained  by the C.B.I.  police out of coercion or
\nthreat.\n<\/p>\n
37.  Only in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,  the    second  accused
\nstated that  he  was  detained by the C.B.I.  police on 20.2 .1986 and in the
\nC.B.I.  office, his signatures were obtained in  white papers and that he had
\nno knowledge about the search conducted in  his premises.  This  defence  has
\nbeen  pleaded  belatedly by the second accused only at the time of questioning
\nunder Section 313 Cr.P.C.   and no such suggesion was put  to  the  witnesses
\nconcerned, namely, P.Ws.10 and 11.  Furthermore, it is not the case of A2 that
\nhe  complained  to  the  Judicial  Magistrate  concerned,  who remanded him to
\ncustody  on  28.2.1986,  regarding  his  illegal  custody  from  20.2.1986  to
\n28.2.1986.\n<\/p>\n
38.  It is further contended on behalf of A2 that there is  no explanation by
\nP.W.11 as to how A2 was traced.  This submission  lacks substance.  According
\nto  P.W.11,  he  conducted  search in the  premises of A1 on 20.2.1986 and on
\ninformation, he went to the house of A3  on  22.2.1986  in  the  morning  and
\nconducted search  in  the  house  of  A3.   On getting further information, he
\nstraightaway came to the house of A2 and conducted search in the  premises  of
\nA2  in  the  presence  of  A2   and recovered M.O.11 film negatives and other
\nincriminating materials relating to other cases.\n<\/p>\n
39.  It is the specific evidence of P.W.11 that he came to  know through  the
\nsearch conducted on 20.2.1986 and 22.2.1986 that A1  to A3 were clandestinely
\nprinting the counterfeit Central Excise  stamps by using M.Os.6 to 9 printing
\nplates  prepared  through  M.O.11   negative films and accordingly, he sent a
\nreport on 22.2.1986 to the  Superintendent of Police, C.B.I.,  Bangalore  who
\nin  turn  sent Ex.P-34 letter dated 22.2.1986 to the Superintendent of Police,
\nC.B.I.  Economic  Wings, Madras mentioning these facts and requesting him  to
\ntake further action in this matter.  On receipt of the same, P.W.24 Baskaran
\nThambi, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, was directed to register a  case
\nand take action on Ex.P-34 report.  In the said report, it is  mentioned that
\nA3  gave  information to P.W.11 that Ex.P11 film negatives  of Central Excise
\nband rolls were available with A2, who was helping  him to prepare M.Os.6  to
\n9 printing  plates  from  the said M.O.11 film  negatives.  So, the source of
\ninformation, as pointed out by  P.W.11,    was  also  mentioned  in  Ex.P-34.
\nTherefore, this contention also fails.\n<\/p>\n
40.   The  mere admission by P.W.11 in the cross-examination  that he did not
\nrecord any confession from A1 and A3 would not mean  that P.W.11 did not  get
\nany  information  from A3 regarding M.O.11 film  negatives available with A2.
\nThe earliest documents Ex.P-31 search  list prepared in the premises  of  A1,
\nEx.P-32  search  list  prepared  in the premises of A3 and Ex.P-33 search list
\nprepared in the premises of A2 have been clearly mentioned in Ex.P-34  letter
\nsent   by   the      Superintendent  of  Police,  C.B.I.,  Bangalore  to  the
\nSuperintendent of Police, C.B.I., Economic Offence Wing, Madras.    Therefore,
\nnone  of the  contentions urged by the learned counsel for the second accused
\nwould merit  acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
41.  As indicated  above,  the  evidence  of  P.W.20  Expert  is    giving  a
\nconnecting  link  for  establishing  the  acts  committed  by the  accused in
\npursuance of the conspiracy.  According to him, M.O.11 film   negatives  were
\nused  for  making  M.Os.6  to  9  printing plates through  which M.Os.2 and 4
\ncounterfeit Central Excise stamps were printed and   the  opinion  of  P.W.20
\nExpert is  Ex.P-68.    This  is  corroborated by the  evidence of P.W.15, who
\nprinted the counterfeit Central Excise stamps  on the instruction  of  A1  in
\nthe presence of A3 and A5.\n<\/p>\n
42.   When  it  is  the  specific evidence of P.W.20 Expert that  M.O.11 film
\nnegatives were used for making M.Os.6 to 9 printing   plates,  no  suggestion
\nwas put  to  him  that  the said M.O.11 film negatives  were not used.  It is
\nsuggested to P.W.10 that he was afraid of C.B.I., since he was involved in the
\nfake Indian Airlines tickets case.   There is no basis for  such  suggestion,
\nwhich was  correctly  denied  by  P.  W.10.  P.W.10 was a responsible Officer
\nworking as Senior Personnel   Officer  in  Indian  Airlines.    There  is  no
\nnecessity  for  him  to speak  falsehood against A2 to the effect that M.O.11
\nfilm negatives were  seized from the premises of A2 in his presence.\n<\/p>\n
43.  As noted above, the signature of the second accused in   Ex.P-33  search
\nlist has  not  been  disputed.  A perusal of Ex.P-33  would not show that the
\nsignature of A2 was obtained only in blank white  papers.  Ex.P-33 shows that
\nit is a printed matter covering several  pages in which the signature of  the
\nsecond accused was obtained in the last column.\n<\/p>\n
44.   Under  these  circumstances,  the  conviction  imposed upon  the second
\naccused for the offences under Sections 120-B, 256 and 257 I.P.C.  is correct.\n<\/p>\n
45.  It would now be appropriate to refer about the  materials  against  both
\nA3  and  A5,  as  the  prosecution  has placed common  materials to prove the
\noffence as against these accused.\n<\/p>\n
46.  The learned counsel for the third accused  has  submitted  the  following
\ncontentions:-\n<\/p>\n
“Though  the  third  accused  was  acquitted in respect of the  offence under
\nSection 259 I.P.C., he was convicted under Sections 120-B and 255 I.P.C.    on
\nthe basis  of insufficient materials.  The  implication of A3 is based on the
\ninformation given by A1.  But, P.W.11  Deputy Superintendent  of  Police  did
\nnot record  any  confession statement  either from A1 or A3.  The presence of
\nA3 during the search  was    doubtful,  since  P.W.10  did  not  tell  P.W.24
\nInvestigating Officer  that  A3  was  present.    According  to P.W.11, A3 was
\narrested by him on 22.2.1986,  whereas P.W.10 stated that  he  did  not  know
\nabout the  same.    On  the    other hand, P.W.24 would state that A3 was not
\narrested on 22.2.1986  and he was arrested only on 28.2.1986.    In  Ex.P-34,
\nthere is no mention about the presence of P.W.10 during the search.  According
\nto P.W.10,  the  third  accused  signed  Ex.P-32  search list only once.  But,
\nEx.P-3 2 contains the signature of A3 in  Tamil  and  also  in  English.
\nTherefore, P.W.10  could  not  have  been  present  during  the search.  The
\nevidence of P.W.15 was not reliable as there is no material to prove as to how
\nP.W.15 was traced by the prosecution.  P.W.13 would state that    five  years
\nback  A3 placed orders for M.O.5 rubber stamp and took  delivery of the same.
\nP.W.13 further stated that he told P.W.24 that he    knew  A3  only  in  that
\ncontext.  No such statement was made by P.W.24.”\n<\/p>\n
47.   The  learned  counsel  for  the  fifth  accused has made the  following
\nsubmission:-\n<\/p>\n
“The alleged recovery of M.O.10 note book was made from the  premises  of  A1
\non 22.2.1986.    According  to prosecution, this would  relate to the entries
\nmade by P.W.15 regarding the printing work done  to A3 and A5 in the press of
\nA1.  If really M.O.10 had been recovered  on 22.2.1986, there is no reason as
\nto why the name of A5 was not  mentioned in Ex.P-34.  While  the  search  was
\nconducted  at  No.32   Soundarapandian Street Kovilpatti, A5 was not present.
\nEx.P-15 series inland  letters do not contain  any  incriminating  substance.
\nAdmittedly,  the    house in which the search was conducted did not belong to
\nA5.  P.W.15 is an accomplice.  Ex.P-129 opinion given by P.W.22 Handwriting
\nExpert as against A5 has not been corroborated.”\n<\/p>\n
48.   A3 and A5 were convicted for the offences under  Sections 120-B and 255
\nI.P.C.  According to the prosecution, A1, A3 and A5  printed the  counterfeit
\nCentral Excise  stamps  at  the  Offset  Printing  Press of A1.  P.W.15 would
\nstate that A1 and A5 brought M.Os.6 to 9  printing plates and  by  using  the
\nsame, the counterfeit Central Excise  stamps were printed by him at the press
\nof  A1  on  the instruction of A1 during the night hours in the presence of A3
\nand A5 and after the  printing was over, they packed and took the  same  with
\nthem.   P.W.15  had  made entries regarding the work done in M.O.10 note book.
\nThese  entries would show that A3 and  A5  printed  the  counterfeit  Central
\nExcise stamps in the printing press of A1.\n<\/p>\n
49.   As  noted  above,  as  per  the  opinion  of P.W.20 Expert M. Os.6 to 9
\nprinting plates were used  for  printing  the  counterfeit    Central  Excise
\nstamps.   On  22.2.1986, the search was conducted in the house of A3 by P.W.11
\nin the presence of P.W.10 and M.O.12 series Central  Excise band  rolls  were
\nrecovered from him and the same were found to  be genuine.  Ex.P-65 cash memo
\nsales book relating to Orient Paper  Mart and Ex.P-66 cash bill book relating
\nto Rose  Paper  Stores were  recovered from the premises of A3.  Since M.O.12
\nseries Central Excise  band rolls were  found  to  be  genuine,  as  per  the
\nopinion  given  by  P.W.20  Expert, A3 was acquitted in respect of the offence
\nunder Section 259 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
50.  As stated above, P.W.15 would speak about the role of A3 and A5.   After
\ncollecting  the  counterfeit  Central  Excise  stamps    printed, A5 sent the
\nparcels through M\/s.Southern Roadways Company as if M\/s.Orient Paper Mart  and
\nRose Paper Stores were the despatchers.\n<\/p>\n
51.  P.W.18 Chellaperumal, who was working as Accountant in  M\/s.Orient Paper
\nMart  during  the  relevant period, deposed that Ex.P-65 cash memo sales book
\nseized from the premises of A3 did not belong  to M\/s.Orient Paper Mart.   He
\nalso  stated  that  M.O.5  rubber  stamp  in   the name M\/s.Orient Paper Mart
\nrecovered from the house of A5  did  not  belong  to  M\/s.Orient  Paper  Mart.
\nTherefore, it is clear that Ex.P-65 and M.O.5 in the name of M\/s.Orient Paper
\nMart were got prepared by A3 and A5 to despatch the counterfeit Central Excise
\nstamps from  Madras to various places under the guise of paper bundles.\n<\/p>\n
52.   Similarly,  P.W.19  Vidyadut  Ali  Khan, who was a Partner  in M\/s.Rose
\nPaper Stores, would state that Ex.P-66  cash  bill  book  in    the  name  of
\nM\/s.Rose  Paper  Stores, which was seized from the house of A3, did not belong
\nto M\/s.Rose Paper Stores.\n<\/p>\n
53.  These things would show that A3 and A5 went to press of A1 and  with  the
\nhelp  of P.W.15 printed counterfeit Central Excise  stamps and despatched the
\nsame to various places by using Exs.P-65 and    P-66  forged  bill  books  of
\nM\/s.Orient  Paper  Mart  and M\/s.Rose Paper  Stores which were recovered from
\nthe house of A3 and by using M.O.5  forged rubber stamp of  M\/s.Orient  Paper
\nMart which was recovered from  the house of A5.\n<\/p>\n
54.   It  is  true  that  A5  was  not present at Door No.32  Soundarapandian
\nStreet, Kovilpatti, when the search was conducted.  But,   one  Kotteeswaran,
\nthe  brother-in-law  of  A5,  was  present  during  the    course  of search.
\nAccording to P.W.4, the mahazar witness, M.O.5  rubber    stamp  “for  Orient
\nPaper  Mart,  Proprietor”  was  recovered  from  the    house  of A5 at No.32
\nSoundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti.  P.W.24 seized  Ex.P-16  series  letters,
\nwhich  would  show  that though the said house  belonged to Kotteeswaran, the
\nbrother-in-law of A5, A5 was presently  residing  in  the  said  address  and
\nreceiving these letters.\n<\/p>\n
55.   P.W.24,  the Investigating Officer, would state that  during the course
\nof search in the house of A5, the said Kotteeswaran  was present and he  also
\nsigned in  Ex.P-15 search list.  The first  letter was written by A3 to A5 to
\nthe said address.  The second letter was also addressed  to  A5  to  the  said
\naddress.   The  third  letter  was  sent by A5 himself to his wife to the same
\naddress from Madras.   Therefore, it cannot be  contended  that  A5  was  not
\nresiding in the place where the search was conducted by P.W.24 in the presence
\nof P.W.4.\n<\/p>\n
56.  Further, it has been established through P.W.22  Handwriting Expert that
\nthe said  letters were written by A3 to A5 to the  said address.  There is no
\nchallenge either by A3 or by A5 that the said  letters were not written by A3
\nto A5 or Kotteeswaran, who signed  during the course of search, was  not  his
\nbrother-in-law.   Moreover,  the    acquittal of A3 in respect of the offence
\nunder Section 259 I.P.C.   would not have any bearing with reference  to  the
\nconviction under  Section 255 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
57.   According to prosecution, after collection of these  stamps printed, A5
\nsent the parcels to various parties through M\/s. Southern Roadways Company as
\nif M\/s.Orient Paper Mart and M\/s.Rose Paper   Stores  were  the  despatchers.
\nP.W.21, the employee of M\/s.Southern  Roadways Company would produce Exs.P-69
\nto  P-71 forwarding notes signed  by the sender on behalf of M\/s.Orient Paper
\nMart.  P.W.18, who was  working in M\/s.Orient Paper Mart, would state that no
\nsuch forwarding  notes were sent by  them.    On  the  other  hand,  Ex.P-129
\nopinion  given  by P.W.22 Handwriting Expert would show that the said writings
\nwere  made by A5.  Admittedly, A5 has no connection with M\/s.Orient  Paper
\nMart.\n<\/p>\n
58.  As noted above, as spoken to by P.Ws.4 and 24, M.O.5  was recovered from
\nthe house  of A5.  That apart, P.W.17, the Manager of Thangam Lodge, Periamet,
\nwould speak that during the relevant period, A5 stayed in the said  lodge  and
\nthrough him,  Exs.P-49  to  P-64  were    marked.    In  these  documents, A5
\nSubramaniam  had  given  his  address  as    No.32  Soundarapandian   Street,
\nKovilpatti and the same had been  written by A5 himself.  Apart from that, A5
\nsent  two  gunny  bag  parcels   addressed to Kalirajan, Kovilpatti under the
\nguise of paper bundles by  using Ex.P-12 lorry receipt.\n<\/p>\n
59.  As noted above, P.W.15 would adduce evidence to the  effect that A3  and
\nA5 came to the press of A1 and printed the  counterfeit Central Excise stamps
\nby using  M.O.6  to 9 printing plates.   According to him, after the printing
\nwork was over, A3 and A5 used to leave  M.Os.6 to 9 printing  plates  in  the
\npress itself and destroyed the  waste.\n<\/p>\n
60.   P.W.15  cannot  be  considered  to  be  an  accomplice, as  there is no
\nmaterial to show  that  he  knew  that  they  were  committing  some  offence.
\nAccording to him, as an employee under A1, he carried out  the instruction of
\nA1  by  printing  the  stamps  by  using  M.Os.6 to 9 and  he made entries in
\nrespect of the said work in M.O.10 note book.\n<\/p>\n
61.  It may be true that A5’s name was not mentioned in Ex.P-34.   The  reason
\nis obvious.   P.W.15  was  traced  only  later.  The  search conducted in the
\nhouse of A1 to A3 by P.W.11 had revealed the  involvement of A1 to  A3  alone
\nat that  stage.    Once  P.W.24  Deputy  Superintendent of Police took up the
\ninvestigation, he was able to spread  the net and find out the involvement of
\nother accused also.  Therefore, the non-inclusion of A5 in Ex.P-34  would  not
\nin any way help the  case of the defence.\n<\/p>\n
62.   On  the other hand, as discussed above, the evidence of  P.W.15, P.W.4,
\nP.W.24, P.W.17, P.W.18 and P.W.19 and the materials  recovered from the house
\nof A3 and A5 would clearly show that both A3  and A5,  in  pursuance  of  the
\nconspiracy  hatched  with  others,  printed    the counterfeit Central Excise
\nstamps and distributed the same to  various places in the name of  M\/s.Orient
\nPaper Mart and M\/s.Rose Paper  Stores under the guise of paper bundles.\n<\/p>\n
63.   These  materials  would show that the evidence of P.W.15  as against A3
\nand A5 has been substantially corroborated by the other oral  and  documentary
\nevidence.  Consequently, it has to be held that the conviction imposed upon A3
\nand A5  for  the offences under  Sections 120-B and 255 I.P.C.  are liable to
\nbe confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
64.  Let us now come to the case of A4.\n<\/p>\n
65.  The learned counsel for A4, by adopting the arguments   advanced  by  A3
\nand  A5,  would  submit  that  the  conviction  imposed  on A4  merely on the
\nevidence of P.W.1, who is an approver, cannot be  sustained, as the materials
\navailable on record would not be sufficient to  convict A4 for  the  offences
\nunder Section 120-B and 259 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
66.  Section  259  I.P.C.    provides  possession  of counterfeit  Government
\nstamp.  According to prosecution, A4 took delivery of the  parcels containing
\nthe counterfeit Central Excise stamps sent by A5,    which  were  distributed
\nthrough P.W.1  to  various  factories.   The  evidence of P.W.1, an approver,
\nwould show that on the request made by A4, he worked in several  safety  match
\nfactories  and  used  to remove the  genuine band rolls and replace them with
\nthe counterfeit band rolls  given by A4.  He would also  state  that  on  the
\ninstruction of A4, he  used to take delivery of the band rolls.\n<\/p>\n
67.   Apart from that, the evidence of P.W.8 would show that  at the instance
\nof A4, he took delivery of the band roll parcels  under Exs.P-124 and  P-125.
\nThis is  addressed  as  Kalirajan,  Kovilpatti  in  Exs.P-124  and P-125.  The
\naddressee was mentioned as Kalirajan, No.125 Main Road,  Kovilpatti.    P.W.7
\nInbaraj  would  state  that  no such  person was available in the premises at
\nNo.125 Main Road, Kovilpatti.\n<\/p>\n
68.  P.W.2 Thirumalaikumar, who was working in TVS Lorry  Booking  office  at
\nKovilpatti, would state that on 22.2.1986, A4  Shenbagaraj visited his office
\nwith  Ex.P-12 and took delivery of two gunny  bag parcels sent in the name of
\nKalirajan.  On the back of Ex.P-12  lorry receipt, A4 Shenbagaraj signed  and
\ntook  delivery  of  the  said  two    gunny bag parcels coming in the name of
\nKalirajan.  P.W.8 N.Shenbagaraj also would corroborate the statement of P.W.2.\n<\/p>\n
69.  According to prosecution, though the evidence of P.W.2, who  was  working
\nin  TVS  Lorry Booking Office, Kovilpatti, two gunny  bag parcels in the name
\nof Kalirajan was taken delivery by A4 and P.W.8 and they were kept  concealed
\nnear his  house.    On  the  basis  of  the  statement of these witnesses, on
\n24.2.1986, P.W.24 Deputy    Superintendent  of  Police  arrested  A4  in  the
\npresence of  P.W.4  Inspector  of    Central  Excise,  Kovilpatti.  A4 gave a
\nconfession to the effect that he  took delivery of  the  counterfeit  Central
\nExcise stamps  sent  in  the  name    of  Kalirajan  by  A5 from Madras.  The
\nadmissible portion of his  confession is marked as Ex.P-17.   He  would  also
\npoint out  the  place  where   the parcels were kept concealed.  Accordingly,
\nP.W.24 and other  officials were taken to a secluded place near his house and
\nM.Os.  1 and 3  two gunny bags and  M.Os.2  and  4  yellow  and  blue  colour
\nCentral  Excise  stamps  were  seized  in  the presence of P.W.4 under Ex.P-29
\nrecovery  mahazar.  The gunny bags also contained the address  of  Kalirajan,
\nKovilpatti.   P.W.24    sent  M.Os.2  and  4  along  with  other articles for
\nanalysis.  P.W.20  Analyst submitted  Ex.P-68  opinion  to  the  effect  that
\nM.Os.2 and 4 Central  Excise stamps were counterfeit stamps and the same were
\nprinted with  the use of M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates.\n<\/p>\n
70.   The  evidence  of  P.W.22  Handwriting  Expert  would  show    that the
\nhandwriting in Ex.P-12 was made by A4.  As such, the  participation of A4 has
\nbeen clearly established by the  evidence  of  P.W.8,  P.W.4,  P.W.24  and  by
\nEx.P-12, P-17,  P-29 and M.Os.1 to 4.  P.W.1  approver would also speak about
\nthe fact that A4 used to remove the genuine  band rolls and replace them with
\nthe counterfeit band rolls.\n<\/p>\n
71.  In the light of these materials, it cannot  be  said  that  there  is  no
\nsufficient material.    The  whole  reading  of  the  evidence,  both oral and
\ndocumentary, would clearly show  that  A1  to  A5  were  the  parties  to  the
\nconspiracy and each one of them had played an  important role in execution of
\nthe  said conspiracy and as a result of this,  the counterfeit Central Excise
\nstamps were printed at the press of A1  by  A3  and  A5  through  M.O.11  film
\nnegatives  supplied by A2, and A3  and A5 sent the same to A4 under the guise
\nof paper bundles, as if M\/s. Orient Paper Mart and M\/s.Rose Paper Stores were
\nthe despatchers and  after receiving the parcels, A4 distributed one  portion
\nof  the   counterfeit Central Excise stamps to various safety match factories
\nand  kept concealed the other portion in his house.\n<\/p>\n
72.  Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has established  the offences for
\nwhich the accused have been convicted and as such,  there  is  no  reason  to
\nhold  that the findings with regard to conviction and the reasonings for those
\nfindings given by the trial Court are  not justified.\n<\/p>\n
73.  Therefore, these appeals have no merits and consequently,  the  same  are
\nliable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
74.  In  the  result,  these  appeals  are  dismissed.    The  conviction and
\nsentence imposed upon the appellants  (A1  to  A5)  by  the  trial  Court  are
\nconfirmed.   The trial Court is directed to take steps to  secure the custody
\nof the appellants to undergo the remaining  period  of  sentence.    5-11-2001
\nIndex:  Yes dpp                         \/True copy\/                        Sd\/
\n                                                Asst.Registrar<\/p>\n
To:  1.The VIII  Addl.    Sessions  Judge,  City Civil Court, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
     2.-do
\n        Through the  Principal  Judge,City  CivilCourt,  Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
     3. The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
M.  KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
Judgment in CRL.  APPEAL Nos.3, 38, 50 and 65 of 1991   <\/p>\n
5-11-2001 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 5-11-2001 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3 of 1991 and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 38,50,65 of 1991 … S.Ramaswamy .. Appellant (A1) in C.A.3 of 1991 1. T.S. Kandasamy 2. S.V.Subramanian […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233448","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-16T03:33:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"43 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-16T03:33:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001\"},\"wordCount\":8426,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001\",\"name\":\"S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-16T03:33:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-16T03:33:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"43 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-16T03:33:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001"},"wordCount":8426,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001","name":"S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-16T03:33:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramaswamy-vs-state-rep-by-on-5-november-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Ramaswamy vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233448","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=233448"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233448\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}