JUDGMENT 1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.6.2007 and order of sentence 2.7.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge and Special Sessions Judge (Special Court to try fake stamp paper cases), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Court’) in SC.No.67/2006, convicting the appellants for offences under Sections 120B, 255, 256, 259 r/w 120-B IPC and sentencing them for various terms of imprisonment and fine as detailed in the tabulation below: Accused Offences Imprisonment Fine ID A-1 Secs. 255 r/w. 120-B-IPC 10 Years Rs.25,00,000/- 2 Years A2-5 Secs. 255 r/w. 120-B IPC 7 Years Rs.5,00,000/- 2 Years A1-5 Secs. 256 r/w. 120-B IPC 7 Years Rs.1,00,000/- 2 Years A1-5 Secs. 256 r/w. 120-B IPC 7 Years Rs.1,00,000/- 2 Years 2. Crl.A.No.1385/2007 is filed by the Accused No.1 Crl.A.Nos. 1199/2007 is filed by the accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 and Crl.A.No.1462/2007 is filed by the accused No.4. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused have entered into criminal conspiracy for counterfeiting stamp papers of Government of India by using the machine and material possessed by them and also possessed counterfeit stamp papers by counterfeiting them with an intention to use the same as genuine stamp papers and have thereby committed offence under Section 120-B r/w Sections 255, 256, 257 and 259 of IPC. 4. During the trial before Special Court, the prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 17 witnesses and has got marked Exs.P1 to P26 and produced MOs. 1 to 11. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, they have got examined two witnesses DW1 and DW2 and got marked Ex.D1 and D2. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Special Judge was pleased to convict the accused and sentenced them as herein before mentioned. 5. The above case was investigated by CBI and matter commenced with the information received by the CBI that on 10.4.1997 it was disclosed that in room No.104 of Shalimar Hotel situated near the Market, some persons were in possession of fake stamps and stamp papers and the seals of the Government and they are cheating the Government by fraudulently receiving the money from public by using these materials. The inspector of Police. The inspector of Police. Market Police Station Sri T.G. Sangram Singh has recorded the said information in the station diary and got the panchas brought to the station through his staff. The information was made known to the panchas. He along with panchas the other police reached the, place at Shalimar Hotel at about 8.30 p.m. and checked room No.104 in the presence of pancha witnesses, wherein 5 persons were found in the said room. When the said persons were questioned, he found the fake stamp papers and other materials kept in the room with the intention of cheating the public. The said materials which are found in the said room were the materials used for manufacturing the fake stamps and certain other articles also were found in black colour briefcase. The said briefcase contained the stamps of various denominations. There were also a red colour suitcase in which certain articles were found and also a cash of Rs.26,000/-. The total value of the stamps found during the check was Rs.3,00,000/. The panchanama was drawn and a case for offence under Sections 255, 256, 468, 471, 472, 420 IPC was registered by the inspector of police, Market Police Station in Cr.No.109/97. 6. In pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.3.2004 in Writ Petition (Civil No.522/2003) and notification No.228/105-2003-DSBE (II) dated 23.3.2004 issued by the Government of India investigation in crime No.109/1997 dated 10.4.1997 of City Market Police Station was taken up by the CBI on its transfer. Thereafter, CBI has conducted the investigation and during the investigation search was conducted in M/s. Srinivasa Printing Press at Bellary and M/s. Janatha Offset Printers at Bangalore. During the search one bundle of Stamp papers of denominations of Rs.5,000/-(24 sheets – Valued at Rs.1,20,000/-). Rs.2,000/- (18 sheets – Valued at Rs.36,000/-) and Rs.100/- (425 sheets – Valued at Rs.42,500/- were seized from the office room of M/s. Janatha Printers of accused No.1. The total value of the stamp papers has worked out to Rs.1,98,500/-. The CBI has also recovered 6 sheets having three water marks “Govt of India – Bharat Sarkar (IN HINDI) around Ashoka Chakra, without stamp crest impressions, which were also seized. During the search conducted at the residence of Shri. M. Ramachandra, who was an employee of Shri. Raghavendra Prasad, at No.16/1, Manovarthpet, Bangalore, one bundle of printed fake stamp papers having 2110 Nos. During the search conducted at the residence of Shri. M. Ramachandra, who was an employee of Shri. Raghavendra Prasad, at No.16/1, Manovarthpet, Bangalore, one bundle of printed fake stamp papers having 2110 Nos. of sheets is with stamp impressions of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.100/-denominations along with water marks of Ashoka Chakra were. Each sheet is valued at Rs.7,100/- . The total value of 2110 sheets seized at the residence of Shri. M. Ramachandra worked out to Rs.1,49,81,000/- and search was also conducted at the residence of Shri. Raghavendra Prasad, No. 164, Reservoir Street, Basavangudi, Bangalore and four Nos. of positives (transparencies) having impression of “India Non Judicial used for printing Rs.5,000/- denomination stamp papers eight nos. of positives (transparencies) having impression of India Non Judicial Rs.2,000/- used for printing Rs.2000/- denomination stamp papers, three nos. of positives (transparencies) having impression of “India Non Judical Rs.500/- to used for printing Rs.500/- denomination stamp papers, three nos. of positives (transparencies) having impression of INDIA NON JUDICAL Rs.100/- used for printing Rs.100/- denomination stamp papers (in total 18 positives), were seized from the almirah available in the bed room in the residential premises of Shri. Raghavendra Prasad. The total value of the fake stamp seized from both the premises was worked out to Rs.1,51,79,500/-. Thereafter in the search conducted at the premises of accused No.3 Shri P. Munna at Bellary, two tracing papers containing inscriptions of the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Taxes Department, one half sheet of white paper containing writings ‘Govt of India” (both in English and in Hindi) and one tracing paper containing the inscriptions of the Government of India (both in English and Hindi), and one scroozer of Aluminum metal were seized. Thereafter, the seized materials were examined in the India Security Press, Nashik Road and opinion was sought regarding the genuineness of the said stamp papers and the experts of the India Security Press, have opined that the stamp papers seized from the premises of M/s. Janata Printers, No.37, Dr. TCM Royal Road (Good Shed Road), Bangalore and the stamp papers seized from the residential premises of Shri M. Ramachandra, No.16/1, Munavarthpet, Bangalore were not genuine stamp papers and were not printed in India Security Press, Nashik road. TCM Royal Road (Good Shed Road), Bangalore and the stamp papers seized from the residential premises of Shri M. Ramachandra, No.16/1, Munavarthpet, Bangalore were not genuine stamp papers and were not printed in India Security Press, Nashik road. The positives/transparencies seized from the residential premises of Shri. K.A. Raghavendra Prasad, Proprietor, M/s. Janatha Printers at No.146, Reservoir Street, Basavangudi, Bangalore have been used to print fake Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,000/- and Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamps, on sheets seized from the premises of Janata Printers and of Shri M. Ramachandra. 7. The experts of India Security Press, Nashik Road have further opined that the watermarks on the stamp papers are not genuine. The tracing paper seized from the premises of Shri. P. Munna match with that of imitation watermarks printed on the stamp papers seized from the premises of M/s. Janata Printers and of Shri M. Ramachandra. 8. Based on the above investigation, CBI has filed charge sheet on 25.8.2004 alleging that the accused have conspired in counterfeiting stamp papers of Government of India, by using the machine and materials possessed by them and also possessed the counterfeit stamp papers counterfeited by them, with an intention to use the same as genuine stamp papers and have thereby committed offences under Section 120-B readwith Sections 255, 256, 257 and IPC. 9. Subsequently, CBI summoned accused Nos.4 and 5 and based on their statement, it was revealed that they had actively conspired with accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the commission of offences mentioned above and hence, they are also added as accused Nos. 4 and 5 by the Trial Court. 10. The Trial Court after securing the presence of the accused, heard the prosecution and defence and thereafter farmed the following charges: (i) “Firstly, A-1 being the proprietor of M/s. Janatha Printers, No. 37, Goods Shed Road, Bangalore, agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in conspiracy with accused Nos. 4 and 5 by the Trial Court. 10. The Trial Court after securing the presence of the accused, heard the prosecution and defence and thereafter farmed the following charges: (i) “Firstly, A-1 being the proprietor of M/s. Janatha Printers, No. 37, Goods Shed Road, Bangalore, agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in conspiracy with accused Nos. 2 and 5, on 26.5.2004 had in his possession in the office room of his press at Bangalore, instrument or materials viz, 6 sheets having 3 water marks Government of India – Bharath Sarkar (‘In Hindi) around Ashoka Chakra, without stamp crest impressions for the purpose of being used or knowing or having reason believe that they are intended to be used for the purpose of counterfeiting any stamp paper for the purpose of revenue and thereby he is alleged to have committed an offense punishable under Section 256 r/w. Sec.120-B of the IPC. (ii) Secondly, A-1 agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 5 on 26.5.2004 at M/s. Janatha Printers, No.37, T.C.N. Royan Road, Goods Shed Road, Bangalore, were in possession of one bundle of stamp papers of the denomination of Rs.5,000/- (24 sheets of the value of 1.2 lakhs) stamp papers of the denomination of Rs.2,000/- (18 sheet of the value of Rs.36,000/- and the stamp papers of the denomination of Rs.100/- (425 sheets of the value of Rs.42,500/-) which be know to be counterfeit of stamp papers issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue, intending to use or dispose of it or in order that it may be used as genuine stamp and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 259 r/w. Sec. 120-B of IPC. (iii) Thirdly, A-2 was an employee of M/s. Janatha, printers, Bangalore working for accused No.1 Sri Raghavendra Prasad agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in conspiracy with accused No.1 and 3 to 5 on 26.5.2004 had in his possession at No.16/1, Manovarthpet, Bangalore, instrument or materials viz., 2110 numbers of sheet with impressions of denominations of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2000/- and Rs.100/- along with water marks of Ashoka Chakra, each sheet being valued at Rs.7,100/- totaling Rs.1,49,81,000/-for the purpose of being used or knowing or having reason to believe that they are intended to be used for the purpose of counterfeiting any stamp issued by the Government of India for the purpose of revenue and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.256 r/w. Sec. 120-B of IPC. (iv) Fourthly, A-2 agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in conspiracy with accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 on 26.5.2004 at No. 16/1, Manovarthpet, Bangalore, were in possession of one bundle of printed stamp papers having 210 number of sheets of paper with stamp crest impressions of denominations of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/-along with mater marks of Ashoka Chakra each sheet being valued at Rs.7,100/-(total amount being Rs.1,49,81,000/-) which he knew to be a counterfeit of stamp issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue intending to use it or dispose of it or in order that it may be used as genuine stamp and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.259 r/w. Sec. 120-B of IPC. (v) Fifthly, A-1 agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 5 on 26.5.2004 at No.164, Reservoir Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, were in possession of instrument or materials viz., 4 numbers of positives (Transparencies) having impression of India Non Judicial of Rs.5,000/-used for printing stamp papers of denomination of Rs.5,000/- 8 numbers of positives (Transparencies) having impression of Indian Non Judicial, Rs.2,000/- used for printing stamp papers of the denomination of Rs.2,000/- and 3 numbers of positives (Transparencies) having impression of India Non Judicial, Rs.500/- to used for printing of Rs.500/-denomination stamp papers, 3 numbers of (transparencies) having impression of India Non Judicial, Rs.100/-used in printing stamp paper of denomination of Rs.100/- (in total 18 positives) for the purpose of being used or knowing or having reason to believe that they are intended to be used for the purpose of counterfeiting any stamp issued by the Government for the purpose of and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 26 r/w. Sec.120B of IPC. (vi) Sixthly, A-3 who was the owner of M/s. Sreenivasa Printing Press Bellary, agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 on 26.5.2004 had in his possession at M/s. Sreenivasa Printing Press, Bellary, instrument or materials viz., two tracing papers containing the inscriptions of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Tax Department used sheet of white paper containing writing Government of India (both in English and in Hindi) and one scroozer of aluminum, for the purpose of being used or knowing or having reason to believe that they are intended to be used for the purpose of counterfeiting any stamps issued by Government for the purpose of revenue and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 256 r/w. Section 120-B of IPC. (vii) Seventhly, A-4 agreed to do illegal acts by illegal mean and in criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.1 to 3 and on 26.5.2004 at Bellary with the assistance of A-3 conunterfeited or intended to perform any part of the process of counterfeiting viz, that he printed water marks on the seized of stamp papers referred to in the above charges and that subsequently with the assistance of accused No.5, printed the crest impressions on the water marked papers by conspiring with accused No.1 this press M/s. Janatha Printing Press, Bangalore, as stamps issued by the Government of India for the purse of revenue and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 255 r/w. Sec. 120-B of IPC. (viii) Eighthly, A-4 agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in criminal conspiracy with accused Nos. to 3 and 5, on 26.5.2004 at Bellary made or performed any part of the process of making of instrument in as much as accused No.4 with the assistance of accused No.3 printed water marks on the seized stamp papers and subsequently with the assistance of accused No.5 printed the crest impressions on the water marked papers by conspiring with accused No.1 at his press viz. M/s. Janatha Printers, for being used or had reason to believe that it was intended to be used for counterfeiting stamps issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 257 r/w. Sec.120B of IPC. (ix) Ninthly A-1 on or about 26.5.2004 agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 5 had in his possession at M/s. Janatha Printers, Bangalore, one sheet having 3 water marks Govt of India-Bharath Sarkar (In Hindi) around Ashoka Chakra without stamp crest impressions and one sheet having 3 water marks Govt. of India – Bharath Sarkar (In Hindi) around Ashoka Chakra with stamp crest impressions, for the purpose of being used or knowing or having reason to believe, that they are intended to be used for the purpose of counterfeiting the stamps issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 257 r/w. Sec. 120-B of IPC. (x) Tenthly, A-4 on or about 26.5.2004 agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in criminal conspiracy with accused Nos. (x) Tenthly, A-4 on or about 26.5.2004 agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in criminal conspiracy with accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 counterfeited or knowingly performed any process or counterfeiting any stamp in as much as on the sheet having water marks of Ashoka Chakra having 3 water marks Govt. of India – Bharath Sarkar (In Hindi) around Ashoka Chakra, without stamp crest impressions, the signature of A-4 was found available and on the sheet having 3 water marks Govt. of India – Bharath Sarkar (In Hindi) around Ashoka Chakra, with stamp crest impressions, it is endorsed as “Colour O.K” and that A-4 and A-5 had signed the same, issued by the Government of India for the purpose of revenue and thereby they have committed an offence punishable under Section 255 r/w. Sec. 120-B of the IPC. (xi) Eleventhly, accused Nos.4 and 5 on or about 26.5.2004 agreed to do illegal acts by illegal means and in criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, made or performed any part of the process of making instrument in as much as they had one sheet having watermarks of Ashoka Chakra having 3 water marks Govt of India – Bharath Sarkar (In Hindi) around Ashoka Chakra without stamp crest impressions and that the signature of A-4 was found on the same and on the sheet having 3 water marks Govt. of India – Bharath Sarkar (In Hindi) around Ashoka Chakra with stamp crest impressions and the same was endorsed as “Colour O.K.” and that A-4 and A-5 had signed the same for being used or had reason to believe that it was intended to be used for counterfeiting the same issued by the Government and that A-4 and A-5 had signed the same for being used or had reason to believe that it was intended to be used for counterfeiting the same issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 257 r/w. Sec 120-B of the IPC. (xii) Twelthly, A-1 being the proprietor of M/s. Janatha Printers, Bangalore, accused No.2 being an employee of accused No.1 working in M/s. Janatha Printers, accused No.3 being doing screen printing at M/s. Sreenivasa printing Press, Bellary, as its owner and A-5 being a resident of Bellary, in conspiracy with each other agreed to do or caused to be done illegal act by counterfeiting stamp papers of Government of India by using the machine and material possessed by them to the tune of Rs.1,51,79,500/- seized from the premises of M/s. Janatha Printers, Goods Shed Road, Bangalore and residential premises of accused No.2 at No.16/1 Manovarthpet, Bangalore and thereby they have committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC. 11. After recording the plea from the accused before the Court, the prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 17 witnesses and has got marked Exs.P-1 to P-26 and produced M.Os. 1 to 11. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and they got marked document Exs.D-1 and D-2 in their defence. 12. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the accused as aforesaid and sentenced them accordingly. The convicted accused have filed these appeals. 13. Heard Sri Younous Alikhan, Sri K. Venkataramana and Sri Dilraj Rohit Sequiera, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned Counsel for respondents. 114. At the very outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in custody and they did not intend to argue regarding the merits of the case but would like to submit regarding severity of the sentences passed against the accused. They submit that the sentence as imposed by the Trial Court is not in accordance with law and is liable to be reduced. It is submitted that the accused have been convicted for the offence under Section 255 of IPC and also under Section 256 r/w. 120-B of IPC on three counts and further they have been convicted for the offence under Section 25 r/w. 120-B of IPC on two counts and again they have been convicted for the offence under Section 120-B separately. In all, accused No.1 has been convicted for 10 years and 7 years for the offences and the sentences have been directed to be run concurrently. In all, accused No.1 has been convicted for 10 years and 7 years for the offences and the sentences have been directed to be run concurrently. However, in all the cases, the default sentence has been imposed for two years and therefore, all the accused except accused No.1 have to suffer imprisonment for seven years as substantive sentence and 14 years as default sentence and accused No.1 has to suffer 10 years as substantive sentence and fourteen years as default sentence. Therefore, they submit that the said imposition of sentence is contrary to Section 71 of IPC and Sections 30 and 31 of Cr.P.C. They further submit that the default sentence for an offence cannot be more than 1/4th of substantive sentence prescribed for the offences and therefore, sentence of 2 years of imprisonment imposed on the accused is contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, they submit that the accused are entitled for lessening of the sentence imposed on them. 15. Sri. Prasanna Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I. submits that the order on conviction does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and the sentence imposed on the appellants is in accordance with law. So far as the default sentence is concerned, he submits that the said sentence may be modified in compliance of the provisions of law governing the said sentence as prescribed under Section 31 Cr.P.C. and Sections 65 and 71 of IPC. 16. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation of the case, in RC-SLJ-2004 E 0002, information was received by the Investigating Officer of the CBI, Sri Hari Om Prakash, P.I., CBI, Bangalore, namely, P.W.16, to the effect that M/s. Srinivasa Printing Press, Lala Kaman Street, Bellary, in connivance with M/s. Janatha Offset Printers TRC Road, Goodshed Road, Bangalore, were indulging in printing and supplying of fake stamps and stamp papers, for sale, circulation and use in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. It was also informed by the informant that the said persons used to supply fake stamps/stamp papers to M/s. Citizen Enterprises Bangalore, which was managed by late Sri Abdul Rahim Telgi, brother of Sri Abdul Kareem Telgi. Sri Abdul Kareem Telgi was selling fake stamp papers at Bangalore since 1996-97. It was also informed by the informant that the said persons used to supply fake stamps/stamp papers to M/s. Citizen Enterprises Bangalore, which was managed by late Sri Abdul Rahim Telgi, brother of Sri Abdul Kareem Telgi. Sri Abdul Kareem Telgi was selling fake stamp papers at Bangalore since 1996-97. P.W. 16 learnt that Srinivas printing press at Bellary was used for the purpose of printing of watermarks on stationery for printing the crest impressions of various denominations. It was also learnt that the work of printing of watermark on the stationary was not done in M/s. Srinivasa Printing Press at Bellary and after completion of the above process the papers were brought to Bangalore for printing crest impressions of various denominations on such papers containing the watermark. 17. P.W.1 – Sri. Bhaskar, is an employee in private printing press. He has stated before the Court that he had joined services of M/s. Janatha printers, Goodshed Road, Bangalore of which A1 was the owner. He has stated that he was preparing the plates by using the positives. After making the plates, there will be process of printing. Number of plates is prepared depending upon number of colours. He has stated that when he was studying in college, he was doing part time work in the printing press of Accused No. 1. Accused No.1 has told him that he has got some orders and that he should prepare the plates. He went to the press of Accused No.1 in the afternoons and the accused asked him to prepare plates after giving positives of denominations of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.100.-. Accused No.1 himself gave the positives for preparing the above plates. He also told that the order is from the Government. He has prepared the plates and gave the same to accused No.1. He has not printed the said materials on the day of preparing the plates. But when be went on next day, since the matter was not printed, he asked A1 as to why the matter was not printed though he was told to prepare the plates urgently. The accused replied that printing would be done by on the next day. But when he went on next day to the press he saw that the printing of papers has already been done on the basis of the plates prepared by him on the previous day. The accused replied that printing would be done by on the next day. But when he went on next day to the press he saw that the printing of papers has already been done on the basis of the plates prepared by him on the previous day. The printed stamp papers were in the press when he went to the press on the following day. He has also deposed before the Court that since there was a dispute between A1 and owner of the premises, the printed materials was shifted to the place of accused No.2. Accused No.2 was No.2 was working as a cutter in the press of Accused No.1 PW1 has further identified 18 positives marked as MO No.1 and also stamp papers manufactured by accused No.1 and also the sheets, which are used for preparing stamp papers. He has also identified the stamp impressions of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2000/- and Rs.100/- which was printed by accused No.1. He has stated that MO. Nos. 1 to 5 were seized by CBI from the press of accused No.1 and house of accused No.2. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he is not aware as to who has originally stated M/s. Janata Printing press at Bangalore. He is also not aware as to since when A1 is running the press. It is suggested to him A1 is not the owner of the press and that in order to oblige CBI he is deposing falsely which suggestions have been denied by him. 18. PW2 – Muniswamy is a operator in the printing press and had worked in M/s. Janata Printing Press, Goodshed road, Bangalore of which A1 was owner. He was paid a salary of Rs.3000/- per month. Accused No.1 asked him to print Bond papers and he was told by accused No.1 that Government order has come for the purpose of printing of bond papers. It is elicited from him that bond papers means stamp papers. A1 told him to mix particular colors to get particular combination while printing the stamp papers. However, he does not know from which source the positives were obtained by accused No.1. He has identified MOs. It is elicited from him that bond papers means stamp papers. A1 told him to mix particular colors to get particular combination while printing the stamp papers. However, he does not know from which source the positives were obtained by accused No.1. He has identified MOs. 1 to 5 as having seen in the press of Accused No.1 and printing machine which was used for preparing stamp papers was brought near Court and he has identified the and the same is marked as MO 11, which is HMT printing machine seized from the press of the accused No.1. It is suggested to PW2 that he is deposing falsely in order to oblige CBI. 19. PW3 – Mansoor Ali Khan is book binder and he is a proprietor of M/s. A1 Mansoor Graphics who is engaged in screen printing and book binding. It is in his evidence that A1 is carrying on business in Janata Printing Press and there was a dispute between his press and that of the accused which is at a distance of, half of kilometer. He has stated that he was going to the press of A1 for getting printed matters of his customers since he himself cannot prepare the positives. 20. PW4 – Vaddepalli Shridhar is Senior Vigilance assistant in HAL Bangalore. He has stated that on 26.7.2004 at 9.30 a.m. at the request of CBI officials he had been to M/s. Janata Printing Press Goodshed road, Bangalore and they were standing out side of M/s. Janata Printing office. The CBI officials went inside the press and after two minutes they came out. They saw accused No.1 in the said press. He has also identified accused. No.2 who was in the Court as the one who was present in the office of A1 when they went on that day. A search was conducted in the said press. The inspector of CBI found some sheets of papers. The search list was prepared and he has signed the same Ex.P2 (a). He has also identified MOs. 2 to 6 the articles seized from the premises of accused No.1 on the date of seizure. A search was conducted in the said press. The inspector of CBI found some sheets of papers. The search list was prepared and he has signed the same Ex.P2 (a). He has also identified MOs. 2 to 6 the articles seized from the premises of accused No.1 on the date of seizure. He has identified the stamp papers having Impressions of Rs.5000/-, Rs.2000/- and Rs.100/-, which is marked as MO.6 on which PW.4 has signed at Mo.6(a), it is in the evidence of PW.4 that accused No.2 and thereafter the accused No.2 M. Ramachandra took them to his house and took out the Stamp papers which were kept in his house. More than 2000 Stamp papers were recovered from the house of accused No.2. Search list was prepared and the Stamp papers were seized. In the cross-examination it is suggested that he is obliging the CBI officials and he is deposing falsely before the Court. It is also elicited that he cannot say the direction of facing of the door of Janata Printing Press. Certain other particulars regarding the press owned by accused No.1 has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW.4. It is also suggested that Ex.P2 the seizure mahazar was not written in the press and that it was prepared in the office of the CBI. But the same has been denied by PW4. 21. PW.5 P.V. Ramachandra is also another attester of seizure mahazar, at the time of seizing MOs. 2 to 5 he has signed Ex.P2 at Ex.P2 (b) in the house of accused No.2. He has also stand that Stamp papers were seized from the house of Accused No.2 and he has identified Mo.5 which are the Stamp papers seized from the house of Accused No.2 PW.5 has been cross-examined by the defence. However his evidence so far as the seizure of Stamp papers in the house of Accused No.2 stood unchallenged. 22. PW.6 Shashikanth Barde is the retired officer of India Security Press. Nasik. He has stated that he has worked in the said press for several years and has presently retired as the Assistant Works Manager. He has stated that on 7/7/2004 his office received a trunk/box containing suspected documents along with questionnaire from the Superintendent of Police CBI Anti Corporation Branch, Bangalore for examination and report. Nasik. He has stated that he has worked in the said press for several years and has presently retired as the Assistant Works Manager. He has stated that on 7/7/2004 his office received a trunk/box containing suspected documents along with questionnaire from the Superintendent of Police CBI Anti Corporation Branch, Bangalore for examination and report. He has stated that he has examined the printing machine in Bangalore on 11/8/2004 and has given a report to this respect as per Ex.P6. Printing machine is of HMT INVICTA 36-R bearing S1.No.3845 of OMIR type, having feeder board size 66 x 77 centimeters and plate size of 92 x 77 centimeters. He has forwarded his report of 13/2004 as per Ex.7. He has also examined Stamp papers sent by the investigating officer and after comparison with the genuine Stamp papers and other materials, he has given an opinion at Ex.P6 and has stated that the referred Stamp papers given an opinion at Ex.P6 and has stated that the referred Stamp papers are forged. He has also stated that so far as S1.No.6 of Ex.P6 there appears to be an attempt to re-writs the lettering pattern of watermark and wheel with intent to reproduce the replica of the same. He has further stated that he has examined the positive images of stamps papers of Rs.2000/- each and has opined that the 8 positives in question have been used for printing counterfeit stamps. Similarly he has stated that the 3 positive bearing images of Rs.500/- each hew been used for printing or counterfeit stamps. He has further stated that he has examined the printing machine at the promises of M/s. Janata Printers. Goodshed Road Bangalore on 20/8/2004. He has opined that the machine is capable of printing the description of the stamp papers concerned in this case. In the cross-examination it is suggested that he has not conducted testing properly. 23. PW.7 Gopala Krishna in the Deputy Manager in HMT. He has stated that in May 2004 the CBI requested him to come to their office and thereafter the CBI officials took him to the premises of Accused No.1. In the cross-examination it is suggested that he has not conducted testing properly. 23. PW.7 Gopala Krishna in the Deputy Manager in HMT. He has stated that in May 2004 the CBI requested him to come to their office and thereafter the CBI officials took him to the premises of Accused No.1. He has stated that he had accompanied with CBI to the house of Accused No.1 at Basavanagudi and to the house of Accused No.1 transparency sheets were produced by Accused No.1, which are marked as Mo.1 series, it is suggested in the cross-examination that he has not at all visited the house of the accused and that he has signed the documents in the CBI office. 24. PW.8 Purpili Nagaraja is the owner of the printing press, who had purchased HMT printing machine in the year 1998. He had started the press in the name of M/s. Janata Printery. He knew Accused No.1 and since he was incurring loss he was planning to sell the said press and Accused No.1 agreed to purchase the same. Hence he sold the press to Accused No.1 for Rs.7.5 lakhs. He has further informed that landlord that Accused No.1 would pay the rent for the premises. In the cross-examination it has elicited that when he sold the press he has also handed over the documents of the press to the Accused No.1. 25. PW.9 Mennappa is a witness to Search list Ex.P.9. He is a stenographer in the New India Assurance Co., at Bellary. He had accompanied the CBI officials to the Srinivas Printing Press owned by P. Munna Accused No.3. The CBI officials have seized certain items from the press of P. Munna which includes one seal, one emblem of Government of Andhra Pradesh and one scroozer. The said materials are marked as Mos. 8 to 10 before the Court, Ex.P.9 is the search list for having seized those articles from the press of Accused No.3 P. Munna. 26. PW.10 – S.S. Shankar Sharma Giri is the Deputy Superintendent of Police CBI, ACB Bangalore. He was deputed to go to Bellary and be has conducted inspection of Srinivasa Printing Press at Bellary and he has seized one screen print paper containing inscription of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Tax Department, letters both in English and Telugu containing the emblem of Ashoka. He was deputed to go to Bellary and be has conducted inspection of Srinivasa Printing Press at Bellary and he has seized one screen print paper containing inscription of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Tax Department, letters both in English and Telugu containing the emblem of Ashoka. He has also seized one screen with spokes and circle, both in English and Hindi, as Government of India, with spokes and circle, both in English and Hindi, as Government of India as per Mos.9 and 10. He has also seized one scroozer of aluminum containing inscription of S.K. Accused No.3 P. Munna was present in the press at the time of inspection. It is suggested to PW. 10 that no such search as spoken to him, has been conducted at Bellary and all documents were prepared in Bangalore for the purpose of filing this case. The suggestion has been denied by PW. 10. 27. PW. 11 Shri T.V.Joy is the Inspector of CBI. Bangalore (Security and Frauds). He has conducted investigation in this case and has seized certain articles in Janata Printing Press, Bangalore on 26/5/2004 and MOs.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are seized under Ex.P.2. PW.12 S. Shekar is the Manager of Bank of India, Richmand Town Branch, who has furnished the specimen signature of Accused No.4 G. Masthan Saheb to the CBI. PW.13 Anil Kumar Ohri is Superintendent of Police, CBI, Delhi. He has registered the FIR in RC.No.R.C.2/2004 on the basis of the original crime submitted the FIR to the Court in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. PW.14 Divkar Bhat is the Senior Branch Manager of the Syndicate Bank, at Horthi, Indi Taluk, Bijapur who has appeared before the CBI on 5/3/2005 and witnessed the taking of specimen signature of Accused No.5. Mahboob Khan as per-Ex.P.18. PW.15 B.N. Shashidhar Murthy has stated that the accused was running the printing press in the building which was owned by him, who had taken it from PW.8 as a tenant. PW.15K. Hari Om Prakash is the Inspector in CBI, who has also conducted part of investigation in this case. PW.17 RB. Bhosale is the Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad, who has examined the specimen signature of Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 and compared the same with the admitted signatures and has given his opinion as per Ex.P24. PW.15K. Hari Om Prakash is the Inspector in CBI, who has also conducted part of investigation in this case. PW.17 RB. Bhosale is the Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad, who has examined the specimen signature of Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 and compared the same with the admitted signatures and has given his opinion as per Ex.P24. According to his opinion the questioned documents were written by the Accused Nos. 4 and 5 and therefore according to his opinion the involvement of Accused Nos.4 and 5 in this case was found established. 28. In defence Accused No.1 has examined N. Rama Krishna as DW.1, who has stated that he was working as Assistant Director in the District Industrial Central Bangalore Urban, since six months and the press by Accused No.1 is a small scale industry and he has issued a certificate Ex.D-1 which is copy of registration certificate of the said industry. DW.2 M. Bala Krishna is a Senior Labour Inspector of 16th Circle, Karmika, Bhavan, Bannergatta Road, Bangalore, who has stated that the owner of the press run by Accused No.1 was not renewed its registration since 2004. He cannot say as to who were working in the said press in 2004. 29. It is from the above evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above. 30. On a careful consideration of the materials on record and on thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence and the documents. I am of the opinion that the accused have conspired to manufacture the stamp papers and have further possessed the materials including the punting machine Mo. 11 to print, and sell the forged stamp papers and were in possession of the stamp Papers worth more than one Crore rupees as per the charge against them. In view of the fat that the accused have not seriously challenged their convictions and on the basis of the evidence on record. I am of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused have conspired to commit an offence of manufacturing of counterfeit stamp papers as defined U/sc, 255 of ID. Therefore I am satisfied that prosecution has proved the case against accused U/sc. 120B of IPC. I am of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused have conspired to commit an offence of manufacturing of counterfeit stamp papers as defined U/sc, 255 of ID. Therefore I am satisfied that prosecution has proved the case against accused U/sc. 120B of IPC. The prosecution has further brought out the materials from the witness and also in the form of documents to prove that they have performed the process of counterfeiting stamp papers issued by Government for the purpose of revenue and therefore they are guilty of offence U/s. 255 r/w 120B of IPC. The evidence of the witnesses further confirms that the Accused No.1 and 3 were in actual possession of the machine MO. 11, and the other materials for counterfeiting Government stamp papers and therefore the judgment of the Trial Court holding that accused are guilty of offence U/s. 256 of IPC’s also based on the cogent evidence on record. The prosecution has further proved that the accused were in possession of the counterfeit government stamps, the same having been seized from the, press of accused No.1 and from his house and also from the house of Accused No.2. Therefore the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt an offence U/s. 259 of IPC. 31. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that Trial Court has convicted the accused for an offence under Section 120(B) separately and that no separate offence U/s. 120(B) can be held as having committed since the conspiracy is committed in respect of any other offence under the penal laws. However Shri. Prasanna Kumar, the learned Counsel for respondent submits that an offence U/s. 120 (B) is an independent offence and a person can be convicted independently for any other offence for having committed criminal conspiracy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in various decisions including one reported in R Venkatkrishnan Vs CBI (2010) 1 SC (Cri) 164 (PP 189-191) and in Mir Nagvi Askari Vs. CBI 2010 (2) SC., (Cri) 718 (PP. 736-737) that an offence U/s. 120(B) is an independent offence and is separately punishable. In view of the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court the conviction for an offence U/s. 120(B) Separately in this case also cannot be found fault with. 32. CBI 2010 (2) SC., (Cri) 718 (PP. 736-737) that an offence U/s. 120(B) is an independent offence and is separately punishable. In view of the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court the conviction for an offence U/s. 120(B) Separately in this case also cannot be found fault with. 32. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no error or illegality in the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable U/s. 255, 256 and 259 of IPC R/w. 120(B) and for an offence U/s. 120(B) of IPC. 33. Shri Y.A. Alikhan, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in so far as ‘imposing the sentence is concerned. He has submits that Section 71 of IPC. Prescribes that where anything which is an offence is made up of parts any of which parts is itself an offence, the offenders shall not be punished with punishment of more than one such offences, unless it be so expressly provided or where several acts of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence constitute, when combined, a different offence, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offence. He further invites my attention to Section 31 of Cr.P.C., which states that when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offense, the Court may subject to the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences to the several punishments prescribed them for which such Court is competent to inflict, such imprisonment shall commence one after expiration of the other unless the Court directs that the sentence shall run concurrently. But proviso further states that such punishments shall not exceed for longer period than fourteen years. He submits that the sentence in this case is in violation of these provision. He further submits the default sentence also imposed in this case is a violation of Section 65 of IPC which prescribes that the default sentence shall not be more than one-fourth of the maximum fixed for the offences. 34. There is substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel. He further submits the default sentence also imposed in this case is a violation of Section 65 of IPC which prescribes that the default sentence shall not be more than one-fourth of the maximum fixed for the offences. 34. There is substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel. On a careful observation of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the Trial Court has imposed sentence on accused No.1 of 10 years for offence U/s. 225 of IPC R/w. Sec. 120(B) and thereafter R.1 for 7 years on against two counts for the offence U/s. 256 R/w. 120(B) and for 7 years for the offence U/s. 120(B). In all there are 7 counts and the default sentence of each offence is 2 years. The trial Court has directed the substantive sentence to run concurrently. However the sentence imposed on the appellants in default of payment of fine shall be undergone consequently. That means Accused No.1 has to suffer imprisonment for 24 years which is not allowed under proviso to Section 31 of the Cr.PC. Therefore the sentence imposed on the appellants deserves to be modified in compliance with Section 31 of Cr.P.C. and Section 65 and 71 of the IPC. The Supreme Court has also expressed this view in the Ruling reported in Chater Singh Vs. State of M.P AIR 2007 SCC page 319. 35. Accordingly the Accused No.1 is convicted for the offence U/s. 255 R/w. 120(B) of IPC and the sentence is modified to the R.I. for 7 years while keeping the fine intact. Default sentence is reduced to six months. The order of sentence for offence U/s.255 and 256 of IPC on three counts therefore deserves to be taken as one count and therefore the appellant is to undergo RI for 7 years for the offence U/s. 256 r/w 120 (B) of IPC on one count and the other 2 counts deserves to be set aside. The default sentence is again reduced from 2 years to 6 months. The conviction of Accused No. 1 for offence U/s. 259 of IPC on 2 counts shall be for only one count and the default sentence for that offence also is reduced to six months. The default sentence is again reduced from 2 years to 6 months. The conviction of Accused No. 1 for offence U/s. 259 of IPC on 2 counts shall be for only one count and the default sentence for that offence also is reduced to six months. So far as conviction for offence under Section 120B IPC is concerned though it is a separate and distinct offence for the purpose of sentence in this case the appellant has been convicted for the aforesaid offence readwith 120(B) and therefore, I am of the considered view that in this particular case separate sentence for offence U/s. 120 (B) is unnecessary and accordingly sentence imposed on the appellant U/s. 120(B) is set aside. In the result, in view of the fact that Trial Court has already directed that the sentences shall concurrently for 3 counts and default sentence of 6 months on 3 counts which means 18 months in the event of his failing to deposit the fine amount. 36. In so far as Accused No.2 to Accused to A5 are concerned I am of the opinion that having regard to the part played by them and for the reason discussed they are liable to be convicted for all the offence but their sentence is modified to R.I. for 4 ½ years and the default sentence is reduced to six months and in effect Accused No.2 to Accused No.5 are required to undergo imprisonment for 4 ½ years on three counts concurrently and default sentence for 6 months on three counts in effect Accused No.2 to 5 are required to undergo RI for 4 ½ years and default sentence of 18 months for the offences under Sections 255, 256, 259 r/w Section 120B IPC. Though they are also convicted for offence under Section 120B IPC, separate sentence is not imposed on them for the said offence. 37. Appeal is party allowed. 38. The office is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to learned Amicus Curive as and by way of professional for defending appellant No.1.