Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. The appellants were prosecuted on charges under Sections 231, 232, 233, 234 and 235 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellants earned acquittal under Sections 231, 233 and 234 IPC. However, both of them were convicted for the offences under Section 232 and 235 IPC. 2. The prosecution allegation upheld, at the trial, was that the appellants were apprehended by the police party while they were in the process of preparing counterfeit coins and they were further found in possession of counterfeit coins worth Rs. 45/-. The police party which acted on the basis of a secret information, took the entire apparatus into possession. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues, at the very out set, that a perusal of expert testimony of PW -1 Hans Raj Aggarwal is adequate enough to invalidate the prosecution plea. In support of the averment, reliance is placed upon Shahid Sultan Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, 2007(4) RCR(Criminal) 847 (Bombay). 4. PW-1 is Hans Raj Aggarwal, Assistant Director, F.S.L., Madhuban, who had examined the allegedly counterfeit coins and given report Ex. PA. It is in his examination-in-chief itself that "the coins Ex. A1 to Ex. A55 and B1 to B5 were copies of the original coins but having many defects in respect of their metal, diameter shape of edges and many defects. If these are used as coins, visibly with so many defects, they cannot be considered as coins." In the course of cross-examination, he conceded as correct a suggestion that "if coins Ex. A1 to Ex. A55 and B1 to Ex. B5 if one is used in open market, it cannot be used as original coins because they were having many visible defects in the present condition." 5. In the light of the statement made by PW-1 Hans Raj Aggarwal, the plea advocated on behalf of the appellants to the above effect cannot be said to be without legal significance. 6. Apart therefrom, the prosecution plea suffers from other lacunae as well. PW-1 Hans Raj Aggarwal had testified that four sealed parcels had been received in the document division of the FSL, Madhuban, on 28.3.1997 and these were forwarded to him for examination on 29.12.1997. He furnished his report on 4.2.1998. There is no explanation forthcoming on the file to explain the inordinate delay in the context of examination and also the furnishing of report by PW-1. 7. He furnished his report on 4.2.1998. There is no explanation forthcoming on the file to explain the inordinate delay in the context of examination and also the furnishing of report by PW-1. 7. It is PW-2 HC Ram Pal (the then MHC) who had handed over the four sealed parcels to PW-3 Constable Sushil Kumar for being delivered at the FSL, Madhuban. There is nothing in the testimony of these two witnesses to prove that any specimen seal impression had also been handed over by PW-2 HC Ram Pal to PW-3 Constable Sushil Kumar. Obviously, there is nothing in the report of the FSL that any specimen seal impression had been delivered with the four sealed parcels. Even the Investigating Officer PW-9 ASI Sahab Singh did not state that he had deposited the specimen seal impression with the MHC i.e. PW-2 Ram Pal. 8. Further more, it requires pertinent notice that the only independent PW i.e. PW-5 Naresh did not support the prosecution presentation to the extent it relates to the conducting of raid. He even denied having made any statement to the police. It is also in his cross-examination that he has already appeared as a prosecution witness in two cases. He also conceded, as correct, a suggestion (on behalf of the appellants) that he frequently visits the Police Station. 9. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, the impugned finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court cannot be upheld. The appeal shall stand allowed. The appellants deserve and are given benefit of doubt. The appellants shall stand acquitted of the charge.