or sworn, or, knowing himself to have been so returned, empanelled, or sworn contrary to law, shall voluntarily serve on such jury or as such assessor, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

See as to the persons disqualified to serve as Jurors or Assessors. (Cr. P. C. s. 405.)

"Pleaders are not incapable of serving as Assessors or Jurors, but it is inexpedient that their names should be included in the collector's list of persons qualified to serve in those capacities if a sufficient number of other persons are available." (Rules of Madras Sudder Court, 28th April, 1862.)

CHAPTER XII.

OF OFFENCES RELATING TO COIN AND GOVERNMENT STAMPS.

230. Coin is metal used as money, stamped and issued by the authority of some Government in order to be so used.

Coin.

Queen's Coin.

Coin stamped and issued by the authority of the Queen, or by the authority of the Government of India, or of the Government of any Presidency, or of any Government in the Queen's dominions, is the Queen's coin.

(a) Cowries are not coin.

Illustrations.

(b) Lumps of unstamped copper, though used as money, are not

coin.

(c) Medals are not coin, inasmuch as they are not intended to be used as money.

(d) The coin denominated as the Company's Rupce is the Queen's

coin.

The definition of coin in this Section must be taken as limited to coin now in use. A Roman coin of the time of Augustus is " money stamped and issued by the authority of a Government in order to be so used." But I do not imagine that any indictment under s. 231 could be maintained for counterfeiting such a coin, which could only be saleable as a curiosity and would not pass any where as money.

231.

Coin.

Counterfeiting

Whoever counterfeits or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting coin shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.-A person commits this offence who, intending to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised, causes a genuine coin to appear like a different coin.

The word "counterfeit" as used in this Code is defined by s. 28 to involve an intention by means of that resemblance to practise deception, or a knowledge that it is likely that deception will thereby be practised. And such an intention or knowledge will always be inferred from the mere fact of counterfeiting unless under circumstances which conclusively negative it. Such circumstances must be so rare that it is unnecessary to imagine instances.

The same definition provides that it is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact. And this provision is, of course, peculiarly necessary in this country, where the ignorance of the people might enable even a clumsy imitation to prove successful, while the low state of coining science renders it probable that no counterfeit will be minutely accurate. Accordingly, a trifling variation from the real coin in the inscription, effigies, or arms was held under the corresponding English Statute not to remove the offence out of the Statute. (See Reg. v. Robinson, 34 L. J. MC. 176.) And so it was held in another case, where the ingenious device was adopted of making coins without any impression whatever, in imitation of the smooth worn money then in circulation. (Arch. 641-2.) But it will still be necessary to show that the article produced or partly produced was a counterfeit; that is, that it was such a resemblance as might be received as the coin for which it was intended to pass, by persons using the caution customary in taking money. This caution, of course, will vary according to the class of persons among whom it may be supposed that it was intended to pass. Accordingly, where the prisoner had counterfeited the resemblance of a half-guinea upon a piece of gold previously hammered, but it was not round, nor would it pass in the condition in which it then was, the judges held the

offence to be incomplete. (Arch. 641.) Nor is a mere medal counterfeit coin, though fraudulently represented to an ignorant person as being money. (Rulings of Mad. H. C. 1864 on s. 240.)

The absence of apparent resemblance may possibly arise merely from the process being imperfectly carried out. If that be so, there will still be an offence under this Section. And even if the metal in which the counterfeit was made was completely different from that of the coin represented, it would still be a question of fact whether this difference did not arise merely from the manufacture having been interrupted in an early stage. (Mad. H. C. Rulings, 17 Nov. 1863.) Copper or lead may be washed over so as afterwards to bear a sufficiently strong resemblance to silver or gold. But I conceive that no conviction could be supported where it was plain that the thing actually made was never intended to result in a coin, but was merely an experiment as a step towards future productive efforts.

It is seldom possible, and never necessary, to show that the defendant has been caught in the act of counterfeiting. The act will generally have to be inferred, from such evidence as the possession of tools, dies, or metal necessary for the purpose; or from finding some coins finished, and others unfinished, or different coins in a different state of completion. (Arch. 641.) The mere possession of counterfeit coin by a person who has had nothing to do with its manufacture may be an offence under subsequent Sections (237-243), but is not punishable under s. 231.

The offence constituted by this Section consists in the fact of the counterfeiting. It is not necessary to show that the coins were uttered, or that there was any attempt to utter them. (Arch. 642.) 232. Whoever counterfeits or knowingly performs any part of the process of Counterfeiting counterfeiting the Queen's coin shall the Queen's coin. be punished with transportation for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

233. Whoever makes or mends, or performs any part of the process of making or Making or selling instrument for mending, or buys, sells, or disposes counterfeiting coin. of, any die or instrument, for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for the purpose of counterfeiting coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

This and similar Sections must be taken as subject to ss. 76 and 79, which prevent an act being criminal if done by a person who is, or supposes himself to be justified in the act. Therefore, if a die-sinker were to be applied to for the purpose of making coining moulds, and were in concert with the police to proceed with the task for the purpose of bringing the coiners to detection, this would not be a criminal act. (Arch. 655.) And so possession of coining tools, or counterfeit coin by a person entitled to retain them, as for instance a policeman, is no offence.

Queen's coin.

234. Whoever makes or mends, or performs any Making or sell part of the process of making or ing instrument for mending, or buys, sells, or disposes counterfeiting of, any die or instrument, for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for the purpose of counterfeiting the Queen's coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

of

or

Possession instrument material for the purpose of using the same for counterfeiting coin.

235. Whoever is in possession of any instrument or material for the purpose of using the same for counterfeiting coin, or knowing or having reason to believe that the same is intended to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the coin to be counterfeited is the Queen's coin, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Coining instruments or materials will be in a man's possession when they are in any box or place which is under his control, and whether they are used for his benefit or not, provided it is shown that he is aware of their existence and character. And the same article may be in the possession of several persons, if they are acting in concert, and each of them have a guilty knowledge of the character and existence of the thing in question.

In one case, a prisoner named Weeks was indicted with four others for having unlawfully in their custody and possession a coining mould. It appeared that the police entered the prisoner's house in his absence and there found the other prisoners, two of whom

attacked the police, while the two others, one of whom was the wife of Weeks, snatched up something from the table and threw it into the fire. This was found to be the coining mould which formed the subject of the indictment. Other implements and materials suitable for making moulds were found in other parts of the house. The prisoner came back to the house after the capture was made. It was proved that he had passed off a bad half-crown thirteen days before. Jury found Weeks guilty, and the Court affirmed the conviction, saying,

The

"We are all of opinion that there was sufficient evidence to be left to the Jury on the charge of felony. In order to prove the guilty knowledge, evidence was admissible of other substantive felonies committed by the prisoner." (Rev. v. Weeks 30 L. J. M. C. 141. L. & C. 18.)

The "other substantive felonies" which are admissible to prove guilty knowledge, must of course be crimes of a similar character (see Indian Evidence Act 1872, s. 15), and not too remote in point of time. The fact that a man has committed a robbery is no proof that he is a coiner, though the fact that he has passed off a leaden rupee a few days previously would be. Nor would the circumstance that a man had passed off a false rupee a year ago be any evidence that another now found in his possession was known to be counterfeit. For any man through whose hands money passes might meet with such accidents at such distances of time.

236. Whoever, being within British India, abets the counterfeiting of coin out of British India, shall be punished in the same manner as if he abetted the counterfeiting of such coin within

Abetting in India the counterfeiting out of India of coin.

British India.

Import or ex

coin.

237. Whoever imports into British India, or exports therefrom, any counterfeit coin, port of counterfeit knowing or having reason to believe that the same is counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Import or export of counterfeit of the Queen's coin.

238. Whoever imports into British India, or exports therefrom, any counterfeit coin which he knows or has reason to believe to be a counterfeit of the Queen's coin, shall be punished with transportation for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.