1992 (10) TMI 256 - SC - Indian Laws

Licensed stamp vendor's conviction upheld for counterfeiting government stamps under Sections 254, 255, 258, 259, 467 with 120-B IPC

Joti Parshad Versus State Of Haryana

SC dismissed appeal of licensed stamp vendor convicted under Sections 254, 255, 258, 259, 467 read with 120-B IPC for counterfeiting government stamps ... Sole appellant herein was tried along with five others for offences punishable under Sections 254, 255, 258, 259, 467 read with 120-B I.P.C - gravamen of the charge was that all of them conspired and agreed to do the illegal act of counterfeiting of Government stamps and in pursuance of that conspiracy, counterfeited Government stamps and sold the same and they were also found in possession of the counterfeit stamps and some of them were found in possession of instruments and other materials intended to be used for the purpose of counterfeiting stamps. HELD THAT:- Two requirements i.e. 'knowledge' and 'reason to believe' have to be deduced from various circumstances in the case. In the context of the circumstances obtaining in the instant case namely that the appellant admittedly was a licensed stamp vendor and he was found in possession of counterfeit stamps, the explanation of the accused also becomes relevant and important in assessing and appreciating whether he had such knowledge or reason to believe that the stamps were counterfeited. Admittedly he used to purchase stamps from the treasury and all such transactions are duly recorded in the official registers. There is absolutely no material whatsoever to show that the counterfeit stamps were in fact purchased by him from the treasury. A bare allegation by way of an explanation by the accused-appellant that he purchased all the stamps including the counterfeit ones from the treasury appears on the face of it to be false, as he has neither produced registers maintained by him nor did he make even an effort to summon the treasury records. There is no material whatsoever even to probablise such a plea. In these circumstances the only inference that can be drawn is that he had 'knowledge' and 'reason to believe' that the stamps which he had in his possession and which he was selling or offering to sell, were counterfeit ones. These ingredients of the two provisions of law are fully established. Therefore the convictions are correct. The offence also is a serious one and the sentence awarded is not excessive. The appeal is therefore dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court were:Whether the appellant, a licensed stamp vendor, had 'knowledge' or at least 'reason to believe' that the Government stamps in his possession and sold by him were counterfeit, thereby attracting liability under Sections 258 and 259 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).The interpretation and application of the terms 'knowledge' and 'reason to believe' under the penal provisions relating to counterfeit Government stamps.The sufficiency and reliability of the prosecution evidence, including the credibility of witnesses and expert examination of the seized stamps.The validity of the appellant's defense that he purchased all stamps, including the counterfeit ones, directly from the Government treasury, and whether such a defense absolves him of criminal liability.The appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the appellant upon conviction under Sections 258 and 259 I.P.C.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Whether the appellant had 'knowledge' or 'reason to believe' that the stamps possessed and sold by him were counterfeitThe relevant legal framework comprises Sections 258 and 259 of the I.P.C., which criminalize the sale and possession of counterfeit Government stamps with knowledge or reason to believe their counterfeit nature. Section 26 I.P.C. defines 'reason to believe' as having sufficient cause to believe a thing, which is distinct from mere suspicion or doubt.The Court emphasized that 'knowledge' implies a direct awareness of the nature of the object, while 'reason to believe' is a slightly lower threshold, requiring circumstances sufficient to lead a reasonable person, by probable reasoning, to conclude the counterfeit nature of the stamps.In the instant case, the appellant was a licensed stamp vendor found in possession of counterfeit stamps, as established by the expert evidence of the Stamp Expert (P.W. 14) who identified various denominations of counterfeit court-fee stamps recovered from him. The appellant admitted possession and sale of these stamps but claimed he purchased them as genuine from the treasury.The Court scrutinized this defense, noting the absence of any documentary evidence such as treasury purchase registers or official records to support the appellant's claim. The appellant neither summoned treasury records nor produced any corroborative material to substantiate his assertion. The Court found this explanation to be unsubstantiated and inherently improbable.Given these circumstances, the Court inferred that the appellant must have had 'knowledge' or at least 'reason to believe' that the stamps were counterfeit. The presence of counterfeit stamps in the appellant's possession, coupled with the failure to provide a credible explanation, satisfied the mental element required under Sections 258 and 259 I.P.C.Issue 2: Sufficiency and reliability of prosecution evidenceThe prosecution's case rested on the seizure of counterfeit stamps from the appellant's possession, the expert report confirming their counterfeit nature, and the statements recorded during investigation. The initial trial court had acquitted all accused, partly due to doubts about the credibility of a police witness (P.W. 11 Madan Lai) whose antecedents were questionable.However, the High Court distinguished the appellant's case from others, relying primarily on the evidence of P.W. 1, Shri M.G. Devashayam, the S.D.M. who conducted the raid and seizure. The Court accepted the seizure and identification of counterfeit stamps as credible and beyond doubt, supported by the expert report (Ex.P.W. 14/A).The Court rejected the appellant's plea of innocence based on the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the counterfeit stamps originated from the treasury. The prosecution's evidence was thus held sufficient to prove possession and sale of counterfeit stamps with requisite knowledge or reason to believe.Issue 3: Interpretation of 'knowledge' and 'reason to believe' under the Indian Penal CodeThe Court undertook a detailed exposition of the mental elements 'knowledge' and 'reason to believe' as used in criminal law. It clarified that 'reason to believe' is a higher standard than suspicion but lower than actual knowledge, requiring the presence of circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the fact in question.The Court cited Section 26 I.P.C. which states: 'A person is said to have 'reason to believe' a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.' It emphasized that such belief must be based on probable reasoning and not mere guesswork.Applying this to the facts, the Court found that the appellant's possession of counterfeit stamps, combined with his failure to produce credible evidence of lawful purchase, gave rise to sufficient cause to believe that he knew or had reason to believe the stamps were counterfeit.Issue 4: Whether the appellant's defense that counterfeit stamps were purchased from the treasury absolves him of liabilityThe appellant contended that he purchased all stamps, including the counterfeit ones, from the treasury, implying that any wrongdoing lay with treasury officials rather than himself. The Court found no material to support this claim, noting the absence of treasury records or any attempt by the appellant to summon such evidence.The Court held that a mere assertion without evidentiary support cannot negate the inference of knowledge or reason to believe. The failure to produce official purchase registers or other documents made the defense untenable. Consequently, the Court rejected the appellant's plea and held that it did not absolve him of criminal responsibility.Issue 5: Appropriateness of sentence imposedThe appellant was convicted under Sections 258 and 259 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 on each count, with default imprisonment of three months for non-payment of fine, sentences to run concurrently.The Court observed that the offence of dealing in counterfeit Government stamps is serious, as it undermines the revenue system and public trust. Given the gravity of the offence and the evidence against the appellant, the Court found the sentence neither excessive nor inappropriate.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held:'The possession and sale of various counterfeit stamps by the appellant who was a stamp vendor is beyond dispute. Then the important question is whether he had knowledge or reason to believe that the stamps which he had in possession and was selling, were counterfeit of the stamps issued by the Government.'''Knowledge' is an awareness on the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind. 'Reason to believe' is another facet of the state of mind. 'Reason to believe' is not the same thing as 'suspicion' or 'doubt' and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. 'Reason to believe' is a higher level of state of mind.''A person can be supposed to know where there is a direct appeal to his senses and a person is presumed to have a reason to believe if he has sufficient cause to believe the same.''A bare allegation by way of an explanation by the accused-appellant that he purchased all the stamps including the counterfeit ones from the treasury appears on the face of it to be false, as he has neither produced registers maintained by him nor did he make even an effort to summon the treasury records.''In these circumstances the only inference that can be drawn is that he had 'knowledge' and 'reason to believe' that the stamps which he had in his possession and which he was selling or offering to sell, were counterfeit ones.''The offence also is a serious one and the sentence awarded is not excessive.'Core principles established include the stringent requirement of proving the mental element of 'knowledge' or 'reason to believe' in offences relating to counterfeit Government stamps, and the necessity for the accused to provide credible evidence when claiming lawful possession. The Court reaffirmed that mere denial or unsupported assertions cannot negate the inference of guilt when the circumstances and evidence point otherwise.Accordingly, the Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Sections 258 and 259 I.P.C., dismissing the appeal.