The section makes it imperative that the instrument or material is in possession of the accused, and the purpose of the same is to use it to counterfeit coin or Indian coin, or there is knowledge on his part or he has reason to believe that it is likely to be used for such purpose.
Although the coins made by the accused in a case could not be passed as genuine coins as the edges of the same were irregular, and thus the same were not counterfeit within the meaning of section 28 of the Code, yet he could be held guilty under this section for possession of instruments or material for counterfeiting coins provided the prosecution is able to establish that other elements of this section were also present.
Where the prosecution failed to prove the requisite purpose of the dies and other materials found in the possession of the accused, a mechanic, he could not be held guilty under this section because the same could be used for other purposes also.
The Supreme Court is of the opinion that imprisonment for a long duration of ten years may sometimes prove detrimental to the reformative purpose of penology, and consequently its reduction to five years would be justified and the accused should be treated humanely during his tenure in the prison so that after release he could be properly rehabilitated.
The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, and is triable by Court of session if the offence relates to Indian coin, and by magistrate of the first class in other cases.