ORDER : Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred and pressed against the order dated 24th August, 2015 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1227 of 2010 whereby the High Court has enhanced the sentence awarded to the appellants-accused. 2. On 9th April, 2008 at 2130 hrs., accused No.1 (appellant No.1) was found with 90 fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 1,000 each; accused No.2 (appellant No.2) was found with 100 fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500 each and accused No.3 (appellant in Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 10298-99 of 2015) was found with 80 fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500 each, along with a colour printer of the value Rs. 31,000/- for printing of fake currency notes. The appellants were tried under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 489C read with Section 114 I.P.C. but acquitted them of the charge under Sections 489A and 489B and awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years apart from fine. The State challenged acquittal of the appellants under Sections 489A and 489B I.P.C. as well as sought higher sentence. 3. The High Court upheld the acquittal of the appellants under Sections 489A and 489B I.P.C. but enhanced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years to that of four years. 4. Only point which has been pressed in these appeals is against the enhancement of sentence awarded by the High Court. It is submitted that the appellants did not challenge their conviction and underwent the sentence awarded by the trial court. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, ends of justice will be met if the enhancement of sentence awarded by the High Court is set aside and the sentence awarded by the trial court is restored. We find no reason to reject this submission. Accordingly, we restore the sentence awarded by the trial court and set aside the enhancement of sentence awarded by the High Court. 5. Having regard to the nature of the above order, we have not considered it necessary to issue notice to the State. However, we reserve liberty to the State to move this Court if the State is so advised. 6. The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms.