iminal Appeal No 26 of 1978 From the Judgement and Order dated 17111976 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No 263 of 1975
Chettur Sankaran Nair and EMS Anam for the Appellant
Nemo for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR J
Counterfeiters all over the world must be singing in ecstasy if there is heaven on earth it is here here here  for according to the KeraLa High Court1 Indian law does not make counterfeiting of currency notes of any country in the world other than that of India an offence
The High Court has persuaded itself by a process of judicial activism in reverse gear that making of such counterfeit notes is not an offence under Section 489A of the Indian an Penal Code IPC and that having in posses sion such counterfeit currency notes is not an offence under Section 489C of the IPC
Such a view has been taken even though there is nothing in the language of these sections to warrant Such an interpretation as will become evident presently
Judgment and Order rendered by the Kerala High Court in Cr
RP 263 of 1975 on November 17 1976 giving rise to the present appeal by certificate of fitness under Article 1341c of the Constitution of India
320 Facts The six respondents herein were charged with offences punishable under Sections 120B 489A 489B and Section 420 read with Sections 511 and 34 IPC
The prosecu tion case against them was that in furtherance of a conspir acy entered into by accused nos
1 to 4 to forge and coun terfeit American dollar notes of 20 dollar denomination they indulged in counterfeiting by printing 2000 such notes
Respondents 1 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 respondents were committed by the Magistrate to stand their trial before the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 120 B 487A and 489C read with Sections 511 and 34 IPC
It was contended by the respondents accused before the Sessions Court that a charge under Sections 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  currency notes
The conten tion was upheld by the Sessions Court at the threshold of the trial and the accused were discharged
Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court discharging the respondents the petitioner State of Kerala filed a Revision Petition before the High Court of Kerala
The High Court by its order under appeal confirmed the order of discharge rendered by the Sessions Court holding that in the absence of an expla nation similar to that in the case of bank notes Section 489A and the Sections that follow which relate to counter feiting of currency notes do not apply to cases of counter feiting of dollar bills
 The petitioner thereupon filed an application under Article 134 1c of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
By its order under appeal the High Court certified it as a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court as the case involves considera bly important questions of law as to whether counterfeit American dollar notes will fall within the purview of Sec tions 489A and 489C of the Indian Penal Code
 That is how the matter has come up before this Court
Relevant provisions The anatomy of the relevant provi sions requires to be X rayed at the outset
The concerned provisions may therefore be screened 489A Whoever counterfeits or knowingly performs any part of the process of counter feiting any currency note or ank note shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall be liable to fine
Explanation For the purposes of this section and of sections 489B 4489C 489D and 489E the expression bank note means a promissory note or engagement for the payment 321 of money to bearer on demand issued by any person carrying on the business of banking in any part of the world or issued by or under the authority of any State or Sovereign Power and intended to be used as equivalent to or as a substitute for money
by Act 26 of 1955 section 117 and sch
for transportation for life w ef 1 1 1956
by Act 35 of 1950 section 3 and Sch
II for 489C and 489D
489C Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine shall be punished with im prisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both
 Analysis An analysis of Section 489A reveals that i counterfeiting any  currency 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 coun terfeiting or performing such process applies to currency notes as also to bank notes as defined by the explanation to Section 489A
And inasmuch as the aforesaid expression interalia means any engagement1 for the pay ment of money to the bearer issued by or under the authority of any State or Sovereign power provided it is intended to be used as equiva lent to or substitute for money the prohibi tion also extends to counterfeiting etc
of currency notes of any other sovereign power
Outcome This analysis reveals that the legislative embargo against counterfeiting envelops and takes within its sweep currency notes  of all countries
The embargo is not re stricted to Indian  currency notes
The legislature could have but has not employed the expression Indian currency 1
A promise obligation or other condition that binds
See Collins Dictionary 322 note 
If the legislative intent was to restrict the parame ters of prohibition to Indian currency  only the legisla ture could have said so unhesitatingly
The  expression currency note  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 inter preting the relevant provision of law cannot substitute the expression Indian currency note  in place of the expression currency note  as has been done by the High Court
The High Court cannot do so for the Court can merely interpret 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 legislation
In 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 expression currency note  is interpreted to mean Indian currency note  the width of the expression is being narrowed down or cut down
Apart from the fact that the Court does not possess any such power what is the purpose to be achieved by doing so A Court can make a purposeful interpretation so as to effectuate the intention of the legislature and not a purposeless one in order to defeat the intention of the legislators wholly or in part
When the Court apparently in the course of an exercise in inter pretation shrinks the content of the expression currency note to make 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 protected from being deceived or cheated
The citizens deal with and trans act business with each other through the medium of currency1 which expression includes coins as also paper currency that is to say currency notes
It is inconceivable why the legislature should be anxious to protect citizens from being deceived or cheated only in respect of Indian currency notes and not in respect of currency notes issued by other sovereign powers
The purpose of the legislation appears to be to ensure that a person accepting a currency note is given a genuine currency which can be exchanged for goods or services and not a worthless piece of paper which will bring him nothing in return it being a counterfeit or a forged currency note
Would the legislature in its wisdom and anxiety to protect the unwary citizens extend immunity from being cheated in relation to Indian currency notes but show total unconcern in regard to their being cheated in respect of currency notes issued by any foreign State or sovereign power
In the modern age a tourist from a foreign country may bring from his own country into India currency to the extent permissible under the law in India
So also he may obtain foreign currency in exchange of Indian currency whilst in India provided he does so to the extent permissi ble by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1
Currency n 1
a metal or paper medium of exchange that is in current use
Collins English Dictionary
323 19731 and operates through an authorised person2 known as money changer3
Would it be reasonable to assume that the legislature was totally oblivious of the need to protect them from being deceived and defrauded It would be unwise to do so in the face of the internal evidence which pro vides a clue to the legislative anxiety on this score
In fact the framers of the Code were so anxious to protect the general public from fraudulant acts of counterfeiters that not only have they defined the word counterfeit in very wide terms in the Indian Penal Code but they have also prescribed a rule of evidence in Explanation 2 so as to draw an adverse presumption against the maker of the counterfeit article as is evident from the definition of the term Counterfeit read with the Explanations in Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code1
What is more the expression bank note  employed in sections 489A to 489E of IPC takes within its sweep an engagement for the payment of money issued by or under the authority of any State or Sovereign power as is evident from the analysis of the Section made hereinabove
And it would therefore cover a Dollar Bill or Dollar Note as well
A dollar bill issued by the Sovereign Government of United States of America would ipsofacto be covered by the expres sion bank note 
And as revealed by the analysis made earlier the prohibition would apply to the counterfeiting of a Bank note or being in possession of a counterfeit Bank note as well
It would therefore in any case be an offence to counterfeit a dollar bill or to be in possession of counterfeit dollar bill
Section 131 The
Central Government may by notifica tion in the official Gazette order that subject to such exemption if any as may be specified in the notification no person shall except with the general or special permis sion of the Reserve Bank and on payment of the fee if any prescribed bring or send into India any gold or silver or any foreign exchange or any Indian currency
Explanation For the purposes of this sub section the bringing or send ing into any port or place in India of any such article as aforesaid intended to be taken out of India without being removed from the ship or conveyance in which it is being carried shall nonetheless be deemed to be a bringing or as the case any gold or silver or any foreign exchange or any Indian currency
2No person shall except with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank or the written permission of a person authorised in this behalf by the Reserve Bank take or send out of India any gold jewellery or precious stones or Indian currency or foreign exchange other than foreign exchange obtained by him from an autho rised dealer or from a money changer
The Reserve Bank may on an application made to it in this behalf anthorise any person to deal in for eign exchange
2 An authorisation under this Section shall be in writing and i may authorise dealings in all foreign currencies or may be restricted to authorising dealings in specified foreign currencies only ii may authorise transactions of all descriptions in foreign currencies or may be restricted to authorising specified transactions only iii may be granted to be effective for a specified period or within specified amounts iv may be granted subject to such conditions as may be specified therein
3 Any authorisation granted under sub section 1 may be revoked by the Reserve Bank at any time if the Reserve Bank is satisfied that 324 foot note contd i it is in the public interest to do so or ii the authorised dealer has not complied with the conditions subject to which the authorisation was granted or has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule notification direction or order made thereunder
Provided that no such authorisation shall be revoked on the ground specified in clause ii unless the authorised dealer has been given a reasonable opportunity for making a representation in the matter
4 An authorised dealer shall in all his dealings in foreign exchange and in the exercise and discharge of the powers and of the functions delegated to him under section 74 comply with such general or special directions or in structions as the Reserve Bank may from time to time think fit to give and except with the previous permission of the Reserve Bank an authorised dealer shall not engage in any transaction involving any foreign exchange which is not in conformity with the terms of his authorisation under this section
5 An authorised dealer shall before undertaking any transaction in foreign exchange on behalf of any person require that person to make such declarations and to give such information as will reasonably satisfy him that the transaction will not involve and is not designed for the purpose of any contravention or evasion of the provisions of this Act or of any rule notification direction or order made thereunder and where the said person refuses to comply with any such requirement or makes only unsatisfactory compliance therewith the authorised dealer shall refuse to undertake the transaction and shall if he has reason to believe that any such contravention or evasion as aforesaid is contemplated by the person report the matter to the Reserve Bank
The Reserve Bank may on an application made to it in this behalf authorise any person to deal in for eign currency
2 An authorisation under this section shall be in writing and i may authorise dealings in all foreign currencies or may be restricted to authorising dealings in specified currencies only ii may authorise transactions of all descriptions in foreign currencies or may be restricted to authorising specified transactions only iii may be granted with respect to a particular place where alone the money changer shall carry on his business iv may be granted to be effective for a specified period or within specified amounts v may be granted subject to such conditions as may be specified therein
3 Any authorisation granted under sub section 1 may be revoked by the Reserve Bank at any time if the Reserve Bank is satisfied that i it is in the public interest to do so or ii the money changer has not complied with the condi tions subject to which the authorisation was granted or has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule notification direction or order made thereunder
Provided that no such authorisation shall be revoked on the ground specified in clause ii unless the money changer has been given a reasonable opportunity for making a representa tion in the matter
4 The provisions of sub sections 4 and 5 of Section 6 shall in so far as they are applicable apply in relation to a money changer as they apply in relation to an autho rised dealer 5 Explanation In this section foreign money means foreign currency in the form of notes coins or travellers  cheques and dealing means purchasing foreign currency in the
form of notes coins or traveller s cheques or selling foreign currency in the form of notes or coins
325 Why then construe the expression currency note  as being applicable only to an Indian currency note and not to a foreign currency note like a dollar bill There is neither any compulsion of law nor of logic for indulging in the exercise undertaken by the High Court which in the opening part of the judgment has been adverted to as judicial activism in reverse gear 
Nor was any ideal to be attain by doing so
Why then stretch the unstretchable It appears that the High Court lost its way whilst groping in the dark by a possibly misconceived and ill founded argument1 built on the circumstance that whilst the explanation to Section 489A in terms refers to a bank note issued under the au thority of any State or sovereign power  similar explanation is not added in the context of the expression currency note 
The High Court overlooked the fact that there was neither any occasion nor any reason nor any need for doing so
For the expression currency note  as it stood was wide and pervasive enough to embrace the currency notes issued by India as also currency notes issued by any other country in the world
There was therefore no need to add a similar explanation
It would have been futile to amplify that the expression currency note  which on a plain reading covers all  currency notes meant what it said
To read the expression any currency note  to mean and refer to Indian currency note  is to misread the expression by doing vio lence both to the letter and spirit thereof unmindful of the fact that the former expression in its plentitude covers the currency notes issued by any and every country of the world whereas the letter is applicable to only one of the coun tries in the world
The High Court also fell in error in being influenced by the definition of currency notes em bodied in the Indian Paper Currency Act Act XX of 1822
The High Court has overlooked the obvious fact that the definition contained 1 in Section 2 of the said Act is only for the purposes of that particular Act and it cannot be imported into Section 489A to 489E of the Indian Penal Code as has been done by the High Court
The High Court was thus wholly wrong in exerting itself unnecessarily and bending backwards in order to hold that Sections 489A to 489E are not 1
A person is said to counterfeit who causes one think to resemble another thing intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised
Explanation 1 It is not essential to counterfeit ing that the imitation should be exact
Explanation 2 When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practised
 1 Says the High Court The omission of an explanation in Sec 489A for the expression currency note similar to the one for hank note  thus assumes importance
The expression could refer only to the currency notes issued by the Govern ment of India
 326 applicable to currency notes other than Indian currency notes
And in holding that counterfeiting of or possessing of counterfeit dollar bills or dollar notes is not an of fence under the Indian law thereby issuing a carte blanche to the counterfeiters of the world to establish their head quarters within the State of Kerala with a view to carry on their activities with impunity under the umbrella unwitting ly opened for them by the judgment of the High Court
The view taken by the High Court is thus thoroughly unsustainable
The judgment and order of discharge rendered by the High Court are therefore reversed and set aside
The matter will not to go back to the trail court for proceeding further in accordance with law in the light of the observa tions made hereinabove
Appeal is accordingly allowed to this extent
MLA Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondents were charged with offences punishable under section 120B 489A 489C and s420 read with sections 511 and 34 IPC for forging and counterfeiting American dollar notes of 20 dollar denomination by printing 2000 such notes
Re spondents 1 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 charge under section 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 counterfeit ing of foreign  currency notes
The Sessions Court upheld the aforesaid contention and discharged the accused respond ents
The High Court also confirmed the aforesaid order of discharge
Allowing the appeal by appellant State and remanding the case to the trial court HELD 1
The High Court was wrong in holding that sections 489A to 489E are not applicable to currency notes other than Indian currency notes and that counterfeiting of or possess ing of counterfeit dollar bills or dollar notes is not an offence under the Indian Law
Therefore 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 law
325 F 326 C 21 An analysis of section 489A reveals that i counterfeiting any  currency 318 note or bank note is an offence iiknowingly performing any part of the process of counterfeiting any currency note or bank note is also an offence and iii the prohibition against counterfeiting or performing such process applies to currency notes as also to bank notes as defined by the explanation to section 489A
And inasmuch as the aforesaid ex pression interalia means any engagement for the payment of money to the bearer issued by or under the authority of any State or Sovereign power provided it is intended to be used as equivalent to or substitute for money the prohibition also extends to counterfeiting etc
of currency notes of any other sovereign power
321 D G 22 The expression currency note  under section 489A is large enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of any  country
When the legislature does not speak of cur rency 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 Indian currency note the width of the expression is being narrowed down or cut down
322 A C 23 The court can merely interpret the section it cannot re write recast or redesign the section
In inter preting 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 of the expression currency note  to make 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 protected from being deceived or cheated
The citizens deal with and transact business with each other through the medium of currency
It is incon ceivable why the legislature should be anxious to protect citizens from being deceived or cheated only in respect of Indian currency notes and not in respect of currency notes issued by other sovereign powers
322 B 322 F 24 To read the expression any currency note  to mean and refer only to Indian currency note is to misread the expression by doing violence both to the letter and spirit thereof unmindful of the fact that the former expression in its plentitude covers the currency notes issued by any and every country of the world whereas the latter is applicable to only one of the countries in the world
325 D 3
The expression bank note  employed in sections 489A to 489E of IPC takes within its sweep an engagement for the payment of money issued by or under 319 the authority of any State or Sovereign power as is evident from the analysis of section 489A
It would therefore cover a dollar bill or dollar note as well
A dollar bill issued by the Soveriegn Government of United States of America would ipsofacto be covered by the expression banknote 
And as revealed by the analysis made earlier the prohibition would apply to the counterfeiting of a Bank note or being in possession of a counterfeit Bank note as well
It would therefore in any case be an offence tO counterfeit a dollar bill or to be in possession of a counterfeit dollar bill
323 C D 4
The definition contained in section 2 of the Indian Paper Currency Act is only for the purpose of that particular Act and it cannot be imported into section 489A to 489E of the Indian Penal Code
325 E