Proof of prohibited coin possession failed where denomination and quantity were not clearly established, leaving acquittal intact.

Prosecution under Rule 132 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 failed because the evidence did not reliably prove that the respondent possessed small coins beyond his personal or business requirements. The record was uncertain on the total amount seized, part of the coins was not produced, and the seizure list did not clearly segregate denominations. As rupee coins were not covered by the prohibition, the prosecution had to prove the exact extent of objectionable small coins before any burden could shift to the accused. On that evidentiary footing, the essential ingredients of the offence were not established and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the respondent was in possession of small coins in excess of his personal or business requirements so as to sustain conviction under Rule 132 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.

Analysis: The prosecution case depended on establishing the exact extent and denomination of the coins seized. The evidence showed uncertainty in the total amount recovered, non-production of part of the seized coins, and no clear denomination-wise segregation in the seizure list. The rule prohibited possession of small coins beyond personal or business requirement, but the record did not reliably prove how much of the seized currency consisted of such coins as opposed to rupee coins, which were not covered by the prohibition. In the absence of cogent evidence proving the objectionable possession, the burden did not shift to the accused to explain the extent of his requirement.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence, and the acquittal was rightly upheld.

---