Judgment ( 1. ) THIS judgment shall dispose off Criminal Appeal Nos. 961/05, 967/05, 968/05, 1062/05,1074/05 and 1214/05, as these appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 16-4-2005 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, sehore in Sessions Trial No. 124/99 whereby the appellants Laxmi Narayan, mangilal and Vijay Chourasiya have been convicted under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of IPC, the appellant Magvendra has been convicted under section 120-B of IPC, the appellant Mohan Singh has been convicted under section 489-C of IPC, the appellants Manoj Gupta and Narendra Agrawal have been convicted under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC and they have been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of different period, as per Paragraph 85 of the judgment. ( 2. ) THE prosecution story in short is that Shiv Darshan Ram (P. W. 1) withdrew the amount of Rs. 11,000/- on 21-4-1999 from Punjab National Bank, sehore Branch. The amount was paid by the accused Madanlal, Cashier of the bank, who has been acquitted by the Trial Court. Shiv Darshan Ram received the currency notes of 500 denomination from the Bank. On 22-4-99when his son went to LIC office to deposit the amount, the officials of LIC told him that the currency notes are counterfeit. Thereafter, this complainant reached at the bank and repeatedly asked the officials of the Bank to take back the currency notes, but ultimately, on 23-4-99 the cashier refused to exchange the currency notes. Thereafter, he lodged the report (Exh. P-l) at Police Station, Kotwali, sehore where the report was registered vide Exh. P-2. He also handed over 12 currency notes of 500 denomination, which were seized by Arvind Singh chouhan (P. W. 19), who prepared the seizure memo (Exh. P-3 ). When the matter was enquired from Madanlal Vishwakarma, Cashier, he informed the police that these currency notes along with other currency notes were deposited by account holder Purnima Gandhe and Sharda Gandhe and the same were handed over to the complainant Shiv Darshan Ram. Purnima Gandhe accused (acquitted by the Court below) was interrogated and her memorandum (Exh. P-10) was prepared, who disclosed that she received these currency notes from the accused Mangilal Patel. ( 3. Purnima Gandhe accused (acquitted by the Court below) was interrogated and her memorandum (Exh. P-10) was prepared, who disclosed that she received these currency notes from the accused Mangilal Patel. ( 3. ) THE Investigating Officer reached at Rajhans Lodge with Purnima and witnesses where the accused Mangilal was found in room No. 5 of the lodge. The accused Mangilal gave the information to the Investigating Officer about one currency note and the memorandum (Exh. P-4) was prepared, which was seized vide seizure memo (Exh. P-6 ). The accused Mangilal disclosed that he received the counterfeit currency notes from accused Manorama Bajaj (deceased) and, thereafter, the Investigating Officer reached at the house of manorama Bajaj along with accused Mangilal and witnesses. The memorandum (Exh. P-5) of Manorama was recorded, who disclosed that the accused Laxmi narayan Soni handed over counterfeit currency notes to her and out of those currency notes, she handed over the currency notes amounting to Rs. 45,000/- to mangilal. One counterfeit currency note was also recovered from the possession of Manorama Bajaj and seizure memo (Exh. P-7) was prepared. ( 4. ) THE accused persons Purnima Gandhe, Manorama Bajaj and mangilal were arrested and arrest memos (Exhs. P-36 to P-38) were prepared. The enquiry was made from accused Mangilal and his memorandum (Exh. P-35) was recorded in which he disclosed the names of accused Manorama Bajaj and purnima Gandhe. He also disclosed that he deposited the currency notes with manoj Sharma, Manager of the lodge. ( 5. ) SINCE, the accused Manorama Bajaj disclosed the name of the accused Laxmi Narayan, therefore, the Investigating Officer informed Savner police, but he found that this accused has already been arrested in Maharashtra in respect of another case. Manorama Bajaj also disclosed in memorandum (Exh. P-39) that accused Laxmi Narayan Soni handed over the counterfeit currency notes to Magvendra Choudhary, who was working in Bank Note Press, lor checking and Laxmi Narayan also informed that Magvendra Choudhary had taken currency notes of 500 denomination. Thereafter, Magvendra Choudhary was arrested on 29-4-99 by the Investigating Officer and arrest memo (Exh. P-40) was prepared. ( 6. ) THE Investigating Officer also received the report (Exh. P-8) from shiv Narayan Shastri and the report (Exh. P-12) from Alamdar Hussain and thereafter 22 counterfeit currency notes were seized from the possession of alamdar Hussain vide seizure memo (Exh. P-13 ). P-40) was prepared. ( 6. ) THE Investigating Officer also received the report (Exh. P-8) from shiv Narayan Shastri and the report (Exh. P-12) from Alamdar Hussain and thereafter 22 counterfeit currency notes were seized from the possession of alamdar Hussain vide seizure memo (Exh. P-13 ). The Investigating Officer also seized 14 counterfeit currency notes from the possession of Shiv Narayan shastri and seizure memo (Exh. P-9) was prepared. ( 7. ) ARVIND Singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) received the information that the accused of this case Mohan Singh Verma, Ramesh Gupta and Vijay Chourasiya were going to Jabalpur via Itarsi. He reached at the Railway Station, Itarsi and caught hold of these accused persons. One currency note of 500 denomination was recovered from each of the appellants/accused Mohan Singh and Ramesh and both the currency notes were seized and seizure memos (Exhs. P-17 and p-18) were prepared. These three accused were also arrested and the arrest memos (Exhs. P-42 to P-44) were prepared. The memorandum (Exh. P-14) of accused Ramesh Gupta was recorded and the accused Vijay Chourasiya also gave the information and the memorandum (Exh. P-15) was recorded. Aishwarya Shastri (P. W. 16) seized the currency notes from the possession of manoj Kumar Gupta and seizure memo (Exh. P-19) was prepared. The investigating Officer, Sitaram Sariyam (P. W. 18), recorded the memorandum (Exh. P-27) of Manoj Gupta and thereafter, 29 currency notes of 500 denomination were recovered and seizure memo (Exh. P-28) was prepared. The accused Narendra Kumar also gave the information and memorandum (Exh. P-30) was prepared and thereafter, the counterfeit currency notes were seized vide memo (Exh. P-31 ). The memorandum (Exh. P-33) of the accused Vijay chourasiya was recorded and one counterfeit currency note was seized vide seizure memo (Exh. P-34 ). ( 8. ) THE accused Madanlal Vishwakarma handed over the details of the matter vide letter (Exh. P-46), but the Investigating Officer was not satisfied with his explanation and he was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. ( 9. ) THE Trial Court tried the case against 11 accused persons, but the accused Manorama Bajaj expired during the pendency of the trial and the accused Ramesh Gupta was an absconder. P-46), but the Investigating Officer was not satisfied with his explanation and he was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. ( 9. ) THE Trial Court tried the case against 11 accused persons, but the accused Manorama Bajaj expired during the pendency of the trial and the accused Ramesh Gupta was an absconder. The accused Purnima Gandhe and madanlal were acquitted of all the charges under Section 489-B, 489-C, 489-E and 120-B of IPC, whereas, the accused Laxmi Narayan, Mangilal and Vijay chourasiya were acquitted only of the charge under Section 489-E of IPC. The accused Mohan Singh and Narendra were acquitted of the charges under sections 489-E and 120-B of IPC and the accused Manoj Gupta was acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B of IPC, but as per Paragraph 85 of the judgment, seven accused/appellants have been convicted under different Sections of IPC and sentenced for a Rigorous Imprisonment of different period. ( 10. ) ALMOST, all the appeals have been filed on the grounds that there was no sufficient evidence against the appellants. There was no evidence to prove the memorandums prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and no counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the possession of appellants. The judgment of the Trial Court is totally against the evidence and law. ( 11. ) THE investigation was started on the basis of report (Exh. P-l)lodged by Shiv Darshanram Yadav (P. W. 1 ). This report was lodged on 23-4-1999 in respect of counterfeit currency notes and it was against Madanlal, who was acquitted of all the charges by the Trial Court. This witness also proved the seizure of counterfeit currency notes and the seizure memo (Exh. P-3 ). This fact has also been corroborated by Rajendra Kumar Sharma (P. W. 6 ). ( 12. ) SHIV Narayan Shastri (P. W. 3) has also stated that the employee of punjab National Bank gave 14 currency notes of 500 denomination and when he came to know that the notes are counterfeit, he tried to return those currency notes to Madanlal and other officers of Bank, but they refused to take those notes and thereafter, he lodged the report (Exh. P-8) and the currency notes were seized vide seizure memo (Exh. P-9 ). Almost, similar is the case of Alamdar hussain (P. W. 5), who also lodged the report (Exh. P-8) and the currency notes were seized vide seizure memo (Exh. P-9 ). Almost, similar is the case of Alamdar hussain (P. W. 5), who also lodged the report (Exh. P-12) and counterfeit currency notes were also recovered from his possession and seizure memo (Exh. P-l3) was prepared. ( 13. ) HAVING considered the statements of these witnesses and documentary evidence, it is very much clear that currency notes were deposited in the Bank, which were handed over to these three persons by the officials of the Bank and out of those currency notes, few were recovered from their possession. As per statement of Arvind Singh Chouhan (P. W. 19), the accused madanlal Vishwakarma, Cashier of the Bank was interrogated and it was found that Sharda Gandhe and Purnima Gandhe deposited those currency notes. Purnima Gandhe was an accused in this case, who has been acquitted of all the charges by the Court below. ( 14. ) ARVIND Singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) has stated that when Purnima gandhe was interrogated, she told that she received those currency notes from mangilal Patel, who is residing in room No. 5 of Rajhans Lodge. Thereafter, he reached at room No. 5 of Rajhans Lodge. The accused Mangilal Patel opened the door and thereafter, his memorandum (Exh. P-35) was recorded. who disclosed the names of Manorama Bajaj and Purnima Gandhe and the fact of payment of amount in the lodge. Though, the witnesses of this memorandum have not been examined in this case, but in view of the statement given by the investigating Officer, it is a believable fact that the appellant Mangilal stated the above facts in his memorandum. ( 15. ) IN this case, there were several accused persons and several memorandums and seizure memos were prepared and there are different witnesses of these documents and some of them have been examined but few of them have been declared hostile and few witnesses could not be examined, but it has to be considered as to whether only the statements of Investigating Officers are believable or not in case where the witness of a particular document either has been declared hostile or could not be examined. It is not the law that bare statement of the Investigating Officer cannot be believed. If the statement of the Investigating Officer inspires confidence, such statement must be believed. ( 16. It is not the law that bare statement of the Investigating Officer cannot be believed. If the statement of the Investigating Officer inspires confidence, such statement must be believed. ( 16. ) I considered the whole statement of Arvind Singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) and found that his statement in respect of memorandum (Exh. P-35) is believable. This witness has further stated that firstly, the memorandum (Exh. P-4) of the accused Mangilal was prepared on 24-4-1999 in which he disclosed that he received the counterfeit currency notes from Manorama Bajaj (since deceased) and then he handed over few currency notes to Purnima Gandhe and spent some part of the amount. He also disclosed that one counterfeit currency note is available in the pocket of his kurta. ( 17. ) BHAGWAN Singh (P. W. 2) failed to support the prosecution story in respect of this memorandum, but several facts have been corroborated by rajendra Kumar Sharma (P. W. 6 ). It is also proved from the statements of witnesses that one counterfeit currency note was recovered from the possession of appellant Mangilal and seizure memo (Exh. P-6) was prepared. ( 18. ) MANOJ Kumar Sharma (P. W. 15) deposed that during stay in the lodge, the accused Mangilal deposited the amount of Rs. 40,000/- in two instalments and he issued the receipt to him. He has further stated that police came with the accused Mangilal and the register of the lodge, receipt book and currency notes were seized. He proved the seizure memo 3 (Exh. P-19), the receipt book article 66, the copy of receipt (Exh. P-21), copy of register (Exh. P-22), the entries of stay of this accused (Exh. P-23, P- 24, P-25) and the seizure memo. This witness has categorically stated that the accused Mangilal stayed in his Lodge for a long period. The facts of seizure of counterfeit currency notes register etc. , have also been corroborated by Aishwarya Shastri (P. W. 16), who also investigated this case. The seizure witness Amar Singh Chouhan (P. W. 13)has been examined in this case, who also corroborated the prosecution story in respect of above seizure. The witness was virtually not cross-examined by the defence Counsel and it becomes clear from his statement and the statements of above witnesses that the appellant Mangilal stayed in the Lodge and deposited a huge amount. The witness was virtually not cross-examined by the defence Counsel and it becomes clear from his statement and the statements of above witnesses that the appellant Mangilal stayed in the Lodge and deposited a huge amount. It is proved from the report of Bank Note Press, Dewas (Exh. P-27) in this case that the currency notes seized in this case from the possession of either accused persons or the complainants, were found counterfeit and, therefore, wherever this Court finds that the currency notes were recovered from the possession of any of the appellants, those currency notes were counterfeit in view of the report of the Bank Note Press, Dewas. ( 19. ) THE Trial Court has rightly come to this conclusion on the basis of statements of the witnesses that the appellant Mangilal committed the offence punishable under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of IPC, because, it was proved by the evidence that this appellant used the counterfeit currency notes to be as genuine, knowing to believe the same to be counterfeit and he was found in possession of counterfeit currency notes with an intent to use the same as genuine. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that several persons were the members of the racket who were using/circulating the counterfeit currency notes intentionally and this appellant was also one of the members of the criminal conspiracy. ( 20. ) ARVIND Singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) deposed that on the basis of information received from Mangilal, he reached at the house of Manorama bajaj, who was identified by Mangilal and thereafter, she was interrogated and her memorandum (Exh. P-5) was recorded. Bhagwan Singh (P. W. 2) was declared hostile, but during cross-examination, he has admitted that Manorama bajaj disclosed the facts and memorandum (Exh. P-5) was prepared. Rajendra kumar Sharma (P. W. 6) also admitted the fact of preparation of memorandum (Exh. P-5), but could not state specifically the facts of this memorandum. However, on the basis of the statements of these two witnesses, the proceedings of recording the statement of Manorama Bajaj, cannot be disbelieved, but whether the statement of the Investigating Officer is sufficient to prove the admissible facts of this memorandum or of other memorandums, it has to be considered. ( 21. ) MANORAMA Bajaj disclosed that she received the counterfeit currency notes from Laxmi Narayan Soni and handed over to Mangilal. ( 21. ) MANORAMA Bajaj disclosed that she received the counterfeit currency notes from Laxmi Narayan Soni and handed over to Mangilal. Arvind singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) has deposed that on 27-4-1999, Manorama Bajaj also disclosed various facts vide memorandum (Exh. P-39) arid she also involved magvendra Choudhary in this case. On a perusal of the statement of the investigating Officer, I found that the information given by Manorama Bajaj in respect of involvement of the appellant Mangilal was proved beyond reasonable doubt, but whether any offence was proved against the appellants Laxmi narayan and Magvendra Choudhary on the basis of information given by manorama Bajaj, it has to be seen. ( 22. ) THE Trial Court discussed the evidence and facts of the case in respect of accused Laxmi Narayan Soni in Paragraphs 24, 30, 31, 37,43,44, 67 and 68 whereas, in Paragraphs 45 to 47, 67 and 68, the evidence against magvendra Singh Choudhary has been discussed. ( 23. ) IT is apparent from the evidence of this case that though, Manorama bajaj disclosed the name of the appellant Laxmi Narayan, but nothing was recovered from his possession in this case. If on the basis of information given by manorama Bajaj or on the basis of any other information , one counterfeit currency note was recovered from the possession of the appellant Laxmi narayan and a separate charge-sheet was filed, it does not mean that this accused was involved in this case because it could not be proved in this case that the counterfeit currency note was seized from his possession in another case on the basis of information given by Manorama Bajaj. Apart from that, the accused laxmi Narayan was acquitted in that case and this fact is apparent from the judgment (Exh. D-4 ). In these circumstances, the finding of the Trial Court that the appellant Laxmi Narayan committed the offences punishable under sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of IPC, was totally wrong and that too against the evidence. There was no evidence against the appellant Laxmi Narayan to convict him under above mentioned Sections and, therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court in respect of conviction of appellant Laxmi Narayan, is not sustainable. ( 24. There was no evidence against the appellant Laxmi Narayan to convict him under above mentioned Sections and, therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court in respect of conviction of appellant Laxmi Narayan, is not sustainable. ( 24. ) AS far as the evidence against Magvendra Singh Choudhary is concerned, the conviction of this appellant is based on the memorandum of manorama Bajaj in which it was disclosed that she went to meet the accused laxmi Narayan Soni with Magvendra Singh Choudhary where he examined the currency notes given by Laxmi Narayan Soni and when Laxmi Narayan came to bhopal, he told that Magvendra took the counterfeit currency notes from him. Though, the appellant Magvendra Choudhary was employee in Bank Note press, Dewas, but the Trial Court has committed an error in presuming that this appellant/accused must have checked the genuineness of currency notes. The trial Court also committed an error in believing that part of memorandum of manorama Bajaj which is not admissible in evidence. It is apparent from the evidence produced on behalf of defence that Magvendra Singh Choudhary filed a case against Manorama Bajaj under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act and it can be presumed that probably, Manorama Bajaj disclosed the name of this appellant because of those proceedings. ( 25. ) THE Trial Court referred the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Evidence Act and came to this conclusion that Magvendra choudhary was also involved in the business of circulation of counterfeit currency notes and the statement of Manorama Bajaj recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is admissible under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of this Act. In the opinion of this Court, the Trial Court has committed a mistake in coming to this conclusion that on the basis of the provisions of the Evidence Act, a person who has been named in the memorandum given by another person, can be convicted even though, there is no other evidence against him. ( 26. ) THE provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Evidence Act run as follows:- "32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc. ( 26. ) THE provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Evidence Act run as follows:- "32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc. , is relevant.- Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expenses which under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:- (1) *** *** *** (2) *** *** *** (3) or against interest of maker.- When the statement is against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person making it, or when, if true, it would expose him or would have exposed him to a criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages. " ( 27. ) ACCORDING to sub-section (3) of Section 32, the statement of a dead person is relevant against the interest of the maker when the statement is against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person or it would expose him or would have exposed him to a criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages. It has not been provided in this sub-section that the statement of a dead person can be used against the third person for his criminal prosecution. Manorama Bajaj, the maker of memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,though disclosed various facts against the appellants Laxmi Narayan and Magvendra singh, but her memorandum cannot be used under the above provisions of the evidence Act against the aforesaid appellants. The Court below has totally failed to consider the above provisions in proper perspective. The Court below committed an illegality in convicting these two appellants on the basis of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the conviction of appellants Laxmi Narayan and Magvendra Singh was against the law. The memorandum of Manorama Bajaj could not be utilised against these two appellants in this case because there is no other evidence against these two appellants. Therefore, the conviction of appellants Laxmi Narayan and Magvendra Singh was against the law. The memorandum of Manorama Bajaj could not be utilised against these two appellants in this case because there is no other evidence against these two appellants. Their conviction cannot be based only on the memorandum of other accused and in these circumstances, the appellant Magvendra Singh can be acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B of IPC and the appellant Laxmi narayan can also be acquitted of the charges under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of IPC. ( 28. ) ARVIND Singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) has stated in Paragraph 20 of his statement after disclosing the various facts of the case that he received the information from the informer that the accused persons of this case Mohan singh, Ramesh Gupta and Vijay Chourasiya are going to Jabalpur via Itarsi. He reached at Itarsi Railway Station and caught hold of these persons and thereafter, one currency note of 500 denomination was recovered from the possession of Mohan Singh and seizure memo (Exh. P-18) was prepared. He also took the search of Ramesh Gupta. Since, the accused Ramesh Gupta is absconding, therefore, it would not be proper to consider the evidence in respect of accused Ramesh Gupta in this judgment. ( 29. ) IT has been further disclosed by the above mentioned witness that he arrested all the three accused and he recorded the memorandums of Ramesh gupta and Vijay Chourasiya. The memorandum (Exh. P-15) of the accused vijay Chourasiya was recorded, who disclosed the name of accused Manoj gupta to whom he handed over a huge quantity of counterfeit currency notes. The witness of this memorandum is Ramesh Singh Rathore (P. W. 8) and another witness has not been examined. This witness has been declared hostile. Sitaram Saream (P. W. 18) has stated that Vijay Chourasiya informed about the counterfeit currency note and memorandum (Exh. P-33) was recorded in which he also disclosed the names of Manoj Gupta and Narendra Agrawal and thereafter, he seized one currency note vide seizure memo (Exh. P-34) from the possession of the accused Vijay Chourasiya. Shankarlal Gupta (P. W. 17) has been examined, but he was declared hostile. ( 30. ) SITARAM Saream (P. W. 18) has stated that he recorded the memorandum (Exh. P-34) from the possession of the accused Vijay Chourasiya. Shankarlal Gupta (P. W. 17) has been examined, but he was declared hostile. ( 30. ) SITARAM Saream (P. W. 18) has stated that he recorded the memorandum (Exh. P-27) of the accused Manoj Gupta and thereafter, total 29 currency notes of 500 denomination were seized from his house and seizure memo (Exh. P-28) was prepared. This witnesses has further disclosed that the accused Narendra Kumar gave the information upon which his memorandum (Exh. P-30) was prepared and thereafter, total number of 700 currency notes of 500 denomination were recovered from the bed room of this accused, which was situated inside the factory and seizure memo (Exh. P-31) was prepared. ( 31. ) IT has been contended on behalf of appellants Vijay Chourasiya, manoj Gupta and Narendra Agrawal that the seizure of currency notes from the possession of these accused persons has got no connection with the case of manorama Bajaj and others. Arvind Singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) received the information from the informer and he failed to inform the GRP, Itarsi that he is reaching Itarsi to arrest these persons or at that time when the proceeding of seizure of the counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused persons was in progress. There is no documentary evidence to show as to when he left the police Station for itarsi. In these circumstances, the statements of both the investigating Officers cannot be believed without any documentary evidence. ( 32. ) NO doubt, Arvind Singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) has admitted that no rojnamcha sanha has been filed in respect of his departure from police station and he did not inform the police of Itarsi, but only these facts are not sufficient to disbelieve the statement of the witness. It must have been disclosed in the case diary as to when Arvind Singh Chouhan left the Police Station, but no cross-examination has been done on the basis of case diary or no question was put to him with the permission of the Court so that this witness could have been able to reply the question after perusal of the case diary. Though, it was duty of the Investigating Officer to inform other police station if he is going in the jurisdiction of other police station for the purposes of investigation, but only this fact that this witness failed to inform the local police station of Itarsi, is not sufficient to disbelieve the whole prosecution story. Where the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, such type of failure in completion of the formalities, are not sufficient to disbelieve the statements of witnesses or prosecution story. ( 33. ) ON a perusal of statements of Sitaram Saream (P. W. 18) and Arvind singh Chouhan (P. W. 19), I found that the appellants Vijay Chourasiya, Manoj gupta and Narendra Agrawal were connected to each other and they were involved in exchange of counterfeit currency notes in a huge quantity and therefore, the counterfeit currency notes in a larger number were recovered from the possession of Manoj Gupta and Narendra Agrawal. Considering all the facts and the evidence of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants manoj Gupta and Narendra Agrawal including the appellant Vijay Chourasiya were equally responsible for their acts and the Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant Vijay Chourasiya under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of IPC and the appellants Manoj Gupta, Narendra Agrawal under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC. ( 34. ) AS far as the case of appellant Mohan Singh is concerned, Arvind singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) has stated that when he found the appellant Mohan singh Verma, his search was taken by him and a currency note of 500 denomination was recovered from his possession and seizure memo (Exh. P-18)was prepared. Mukesh (P. W. 12) has been declared hostile and other seizure witness has not been examined. Whether on the basis of statement of Arvind singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) the offence under Section 489-C of IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant Mohan Singh, this has to be considered by this Court because, the Trial Court has convicted this appellant under Section 489-C of IPC. ( 35. Whether on the basis of statement of Arvind singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) the offence under Section 489-C of IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant Mohan Singh, this has to be considered by this Court because, the Trial Court has convicted this appellant under Section 489-C of IPC. ( 35. ) ACCORDING to Section 489-C of IPC, if a person has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency note knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or it may be used as genuine, the person can be convicted under this Section. No doubt, it has been disclosed by the Investigating Officer that one currency note was recovered from the possession of appellant Mohan Singh, but mere possession is not sufficient to convict this appellant under Section 489-C of IPC. If on the basis of mere possession, this appellant could have been convicted then, the witnesses Shiv Darshanram Yadav (P. W. 1), Shiv Narayan Shastri (P. W. 3) and Alamdar Hussain (P. W. 5) would have also been impleaded as the accused persons and could have been convicted also because the counterfeit currency notes were seized from their possession. But, this is the position of law that mere possession of counterfeit currency note would not constitute the offence. ( 36. ) THERE is no evidence in this case to show that the appellant Mohan singh came out of the coach of the train with Vijay Chourasiya and Ramesh gupta. It is also not clear from the statement of Arvind Singh Chouhan (P. W. 19) that Mohan Singh was going with Ramesh Gupta and Vijay Chourasiya. Vijay Chourasiya in memorandums (Exh. P-15 and Exh. P-33) and Ramesh gupta in memorandum (Exh. P-14) did not disclose that they have handed over the counterfeit currency notes to the accused Mohan Singh. Therefore, there is no evidence in this case to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant mohan Singh was partner in the business of counterfeit currency notes with these two persons. Therefore, only on the basis of evidence of seizure of one counterfeit currency note, it cannot be concluded that the appellant Mohan singh was having any knowledge that he is in possession of counterfeit currency note or he had any intention to use the same as genuine or it may be used as genuine. Therefore, only on the basis of evidence of seizure of one counterfeit currency note, it cannot be concluded that the appellant Mohan singh was having any knowledge that he is in possession of counterfeit currency note or he had any intention to use the same as genuine or it may be used as genuine. In these circumstances, the ingredients of Section 489-C of IPC could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt in this case against the appellant Mohan singh and the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting this appellant. But this analogy cannot be applied to the case of the appellants Vijay Chourasiya in view of the evidence discussed earlier in this judgment. ( 37. ) ON a perusal of evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution in this case, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants Laxmi Narayan, Magvendra Singh and Mohan Singh, but the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants Mangilal Patel, Vijay chourasiya, Manoj Gupta and Narendra Agrawal. The offences for which these four appellants have been convicted, were proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. ( 38. ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the appeals filed by the appellants mangilal, Vijay Chourasiya, Manoj Gupta and Narendra Agrawal are rejected and the conviction of the appellants Mangilal and Vijay Chourasiya under sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of IPC, the conviction of the appellants Manoj gupta and Narendra Agrawal under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC is maintained whereas, the appellant Laxmi Narayan can be acquitted of the charge under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of IPC. The appellant magvendra Singh can be acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B of IPC and the appellant Mohan Singh can be acquitted of the charge under Section 489-C of IPC. ( 39. ) AS far as the sentence part is concerned, the appellants Mangilal and Vijay Chourasiya have been sentenced for a period of six years Rigorous imprisonment under two sections and for a period of one year under another section whereas, the appellants Manoj Gupta and Narendra Agrawal have been sentenced for a period of six years rigorous imprisonment under one Section and one year rigorous imprisonment under another section. Having considered their involvement in a very serious offence, which is against the economy of the country and the seizure of counterfeit currency notes in large number, this court is of the opinion that the jail sentences awarded to these appellants, are not on a higher side. ( 40. ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the appellants Mangilal, Vijay Chourasiya, Manoj Gupta and Narendra and their appeals are dismissed whereas, the appeals preferred by the appellants laxmi Narayan, Magvendra Singh and Mohan Singh are allowed and the appellant Laxmi Narayan is acquitted of the charges under Sections 489-B, 489-C, 120-C of IPC, the appellant Magvendra Singh Choudhary is acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B of IPC and the appellant Mohan Singh is acquitted of the charge under Section 489-C of IPC. ( 41. ) THE appellants Laxmi Narayan and Magvendra Singh are in jail. The be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. ( 42. ) THE counterfeit currency notes shall be disposed of in accordance with the rules and if there is no rule, the same and other property shall be disposed of in accordance with Paragraphs 87 and 88 of the judgment of the Trial Court.