1. 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 Court Judgment and Order rendered by the Kerala High Court in Cr. R. P. 263 of 1975 on November 17,1976, giving rise to the present appeal by certificate of fitness under Art.134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. Indian law does not make counterfeiting of currency notes of any country in the world, other than that of India, an offence.

2. 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 S.489A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and that having in possession such counterfeit currency notes is not an offence under S.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.

3. Facts: The six respondents herein were charged with offences punishable under S.120B, 489A, 489B and S.420 read with S.511 and 34 IPC The prosecution case against them was that in furtherance of a conspiracy entered into by accused Nos.1 to 4 to forge and counterfeit 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 S.120B, 489A and 489C read with S.511 and 34 IPC. It was contended by the respondents accused before the Sessions Court that a charge under S.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 contention 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 explanation similar to that in the case of bank notes S.489A and the Sections that follow which relate to counterfeiting of currency notes do not apply to cases of counterfeiting of dollar bills." The petitioner thereupon filed an application under Art.134(1)(c) 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 considerably important questions of law as to whether counterfeit American dollar notes will fall within the purview of S.489A and 4893 of the Indian Penal Code." That is how the matter has come up before this Court.

4. Relevant provisions:-The anatomy of the relevant provisions 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 counterfeiting, any currency note or bank 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 S.489B, 489C, 489D and 489B the expression "bank note" means a promissory note or engagement for the payment 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.

"489C. Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or banknote 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 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine or with both:"

5. Analysis: An analysis of S.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 counterfeiting or performing such process applies to currency notes as also to bank-notes as defined by the explanation to S.489A. And inasmuch as the aforesaid explanation inter alia means any engagement a promise, obligation or other condition that binds (see Collins Dictionary). 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.

6. 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 restricted to Indian currency notes. The legislature could have, but has not, employed the expression Indian currency note. If the legislative intent was to restrict the parameters of prohibition to Indian currency only, the legislature 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 interpreting 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 rewrite, 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. 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 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 interpretation) 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 n.1. a metal or paper medium of exchange that is in current use. (Collins English Dictionary).

(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 permissible by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 S.13(1) (omitted) and operates through an authorised person S.6(1) (omitted) known as money changer S.7 (omitted) 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 provides 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 fraudulent 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 S.28 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. What is more, the expression bank note employed in S.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 herein above. 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 ipso facto be covered by the expression bank note. And as revealed by the analysis made earlier, 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 dollar bill.

8. 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 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 attained 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 argument "The omission of an explanation in S.489A for the expression "currency note" similar to the one for bank note thus assumes importance. The expression could refer only to the currency notes issued by the Government of India." built on the circumstance that whilst the explanation to S.489A in terms refers to a bank note issued under the authority of any State or sovereign power a 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 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 violence both to the letter and spirit thereof unmindful of the fact that the former expression in its plenitude 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. The High Court also fell in error in being influenced by the definition of currency notes embodied in the Indian Paper Currency Act (Act 20 of 1822). The High Court has overlooked the obvious fact that the definition contained in S.2 of the said Act is only for the purposes of that particular Act and it cannot be imported into S.489A to 489E of the Indian Penal Code, as has been done by the High Court "The expression currency notes in S.489A to 489E should naturally refer to currency notes as defined in Act 20 of 1822."

9. The High Court was thus wholly wrong in exerting itself unnecessarily and bending backwards in order to hold that S.489A to 489E are not applicable to currency notes other than Indian currency notes. And in holding that counterfeiting of or possession of counterfeit dollar bills or dollar notes is not an offence under the Indian law, thereby issuing a carte blanche to the counterfeiters of the world to establish their headquarters within the State of Kerala with a view to carry on their activities with impunity under the umbrella unwittingly opened for them by the judgment of the High Court.

10. 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 now go back to the trial court for proceeding further in accordance with law in the light of the observations made herein above. Appeal is accordingly allowed to this extent.