JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II, J. 1. Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State were heard at length. 2. Instant appeal has arisen out of judgment and order dated 31.10.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lucknow in Session Trial No. 11 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No. 2 of 2009, under Sections 489-A, 489B, 489-C, 489-D, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC, P.S. A.T.S. (Uttar Pradesh), Lucknow whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: (i) under Section 489-A IPC imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment of one year; (ii) under Section 489-B IPC imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment of one year; (iii) under Section 489-C IPC rigorous imprisonment of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment of six months; (iv) under Section 489-D IPC imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment of one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. According to the prosecution case, one Mohammad Arif Warsi was arrested by ATS, Uttar Pradesh at Mumbai in Case Crime No. 10 of 2009, under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 120-B & 34 IPC, P.S. Juhu Unit. On his arrest it came to knowledge that one Girjesh Yadav @ Guddu Yadav is supplying fake currency to Mohammad Arif Warsi, who in turn gives it to Matloob. Matloob was arrested by ATS, Mumbai in August, 2009. A team of police officers under the leadership of Inspector Avinash Chandra Mishra was constituted. On 29.09.2009 at about 1:00 p.m. a secret information was received, on the basis of which police party reached at Manak Nagar Railway Station, Lucknow. All police personnel had made search of each other. An effort was made to obtain public witness but nobody was prepared to become a witness. Two teams of police personnel were constituted under two different police officers. At 3:50 p.m. accused came out of the main gate of Manak Nagar Railway Station and proceeded towards the road of Pooran Nagar. All police personnel had made search of each other. An effort was made to obtain public witness but nobody was prepared to become a witness. Two teams of police personnel were constituted under two different police officers. At 3:50 p.m. accused came out of the main gate of Manak Nagar Railway Station and proceeded towards the road of Pooran Nagar. On pointing out of the informer, appellant was apprehended by the police at 3:55 p.m. at the Tiraha. Search was made in accordance with law. One railway ticket from Kanpur Bridge to Lucknow of 29.09.2009, Rs. 210 in the purse, one telephone diary, one sim card of vodaphone No. 9721249879, one driving license of Rajneesh Kumar along with ID card, one ultra sound in the name of Rajneesh Kumar and one pathological report of Shanti Pathology Lab, Agra in the name of Rajesh Kumar were recovered. Four packets of notes of one thousand each were recovered from the right pocket of the pant, amounting to rupees four lacs. Mobile phone was also recovered. On inquiry appellant stated that his brother Sri Krishna Kumar was engaged in the business of fake currency, who was sent to jail then appellant took the responsibility. Appellant was sending fake currency to Matloob through Mohammad Arif Warsi in Mumbai. On the demand of Mohammad Arif Warsi appellant used to print the fake currency and delivers it to him. After the arrest of Matloob and Mohammad Arif Warsi, appellant left his house and was trying to run away but was apprehended. Arrest of the appellant was made in accordance with law. All the recovered articles were sealed at the spot and recovery memo was prepared. A case under Sections 489-A, 489B, 489-C, 489-D, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC at Case Crime No. 2 of 2009, P.S. A.T.S. (Uttar Pradesh), Lucknow was registered. 4. After the arrest, appellant made a statement before the police that when any order is booked by Mohammad Arif Warsi then he used to print the currency at his residence situated at Lohiya Nagar. Necessary arrangements were made by Mohammad Arif. After his arrest appellant has brought all the articles to his house at Village Baghela, which could be recovered by the police. On the basis of information given by the accused-appellant, police raid party was constituted and reached at Village Baghela at 7:00 p.m. on 30.09.2009. Necessary arrangements were made by Mohammad Arif. After his arrest appellant has brought all the articles to his house at Village Baghela, which could be recovered by the police. On the basis of information given by the accused-appellant, police raid party was constituted and reached at Village Baghela at 7:00 p.m. on 30.09.2009. An effort was made to obtain the public witness for search of the house but nobody was prepared then the police party took the search of each other on 30.09.2009 at 1:00 p.m. and search of the house of the appellant was made on the pointing out of the accused. From a room on the southern side of the house, one colour printer H.P. Photo Smart C-5288 All. In one along with adopter and other articles were recovered. Seven disposable syringe, four bottles of different ink, one metallic scale, one paper cutter knife, cello tape, paper and fake currency of Rs. 18,33,000/- (Eighteen lacs and thirty three thousand) was recovered which was sealed at the spot and recovery memo was prepared. 5. Investigation was conducted. During investigation spot inspection was made and site plan was prepared. Recovered fake currency was sent to Government Printing Press, Nasik. Report was received that the recovered article was fake currency. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has produced P.W.1-Inspector Bhanu Pratap Singh, witness of recovery, P.W.2-Constable Pramod Kumar Tiwari, witness of recovery, P.W.3-Sub Inspector Shailendra Kumar, witness of recovery, P.W.4-Brij Bhushan Tiwari, Investigating Officer, P.W.5-Constable Om Prakash Dubey, who had taken the recovered articles to Nasik and P.W.6-Sub Inspector Kripa Shanker Dixit. 7. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 accused has stated that he was arrested from P.S. Bewar when he was going to take medicines. It is admitted that currency of Rs. 210/- in the wallet of the accused along with sim cards were recovered from him but accused has denied the recovery of fake currency from his possession as well as from his house. It is further stated that accused has been falsely implicated. All the witnesses are police witnesses. D.W.1-Smt. Sudha Chauhan and D.W.2-Devjit were produced as defence witnesses. 8. After appreciating the evidence on record learned Trial Court came to conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the recovery of fake currency from the possession as well as pointing out of the accused-appellant. All the witnesses are police witnesses. D.W.1-Smt. Sudha Chauhan and D.W.2-Devjit were produced as defence witnesses. 8. After appreciating the evidence on record learned Trial Court came to conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the recovery of fake currency from the possession as well as pointing out of the accused-appellant. Accordingly, accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has mainly argued that no recovery of fake currency was made from the possession and pointing out of accused-appellant. Even accused-appellant was not arrested on 29.09.2009 rather he was apprehended by the police on 25.09.2009. Police has concocted a false story. It is further submitted that no public witness of recovery was taken and only police personnel were produced in evidence to prove the recovery, which is not reliable. Further, it is submitted that the name of the accused came into light on the basis of one Mohammad Arif Warsi, which evidence itself is not admissible. 10. Per contra, learned AGA contended that it is a very serious matter where the huge fake currency was recovered, which could have been used by the accused-appellant to disturb the economy of the country. Use of fake currency is a very serious matter. It is further submitted that an effort was made to obtain the public witnesses but no person was prepared to become a witness, hence only police personnel recovered the articles. But evidence of police personnel cannot be ignored only on the ground that they are police personnel, unless and until it is shown that they have some ulterior motive towards the accused. It is further submitted that arrest of accused on 29.09.2009 is fully proved by the evidence on record. Prosecution has successfully proved its case. 11. According to the prosecution one person Mohammad Arif Warsi was arrested at Mumbai by ATS, Uttar Pradesh, who informed that accused-appellant is supplying fake currency to him, who in turn supplied it to one Matloob. On the basis of this information accused-appellant was arrested outside the railway station Manak Nagar by a team of police officers under the leadership of Inspector Avinash Chandra Mishra. It is admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 that Rs. 210/- was recovered from his wallet. On the basis of this information accused-appellant was arrested outside the railway station Manak Nagar by a team of police officers under the leadership of Inspector Avinash Chandra Mishra. It is admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 that Rs. 210/- was recovered from his wallet. At the same time sim cards were also recovered from him but it is denied that in the same search fake currency of four lacs rupees was also recovered by the search party. When part of the recovery is admitted by the accused-appellant then how it can be accepted that rest of the recovery is false. If it is accepted that accused was not arrested on 29.09.2009 rather he was apprehended by the police on 25.09.2009 then why any information was not sent to any authority regarding illegal detention of the accused-appellant? Why such evidence of illegal detention or arrest of accused on 25.09.2009 was not brought on record? Merely making a statement that the accused-appellant was not arrested on 29.09.2009 would not be sufficient to hold that prosecution story is false. Part of the recovery is admitted by the accused-appellant, hence, it cannot be believed that rest of the recovery of four lacs rupees was not made from the possession of the accused-appellant. 12. In order to prove recovery on 29.09.2009, P.W.1-Inspector Bhanu Pratap Singh, P.W.3-Sub Inspector Shailendra Kumar were produced, who have proved the recovery on 29.09.2009. Even no suggestion was put forward to P.W.1-Inspector Bhanu Pratap Singh that fake currency of four lacs rupees was not recovered from the possession of accused-appellant. It means that this fact is un-controverted that recovery of fake currency of four lacs rupees was made from the possession of the accused-appellant on 29.09.2009. 13. These two witnesses have also proved the recovery Rs. 18,33,000/- from the house of appellant on his pointing out. P.W.1-Inspector Bhanu Pratap Singh has stated in the examination-in-chief that recovery was made on the basis of pointing out of accused-appellant from his house and the printer etc. were also recovered. Even no suggestion is given to the witnesses that fake currency of Rs. 18,33,000/- was not recovered from his house or no recovery was made by the accused-appellant on 30.09.2009. Recovery of fake currency of Rs. were also recovered. Even no suggestion is given to the witnesses that fake currency of Rs. 18,33,000/- was not recovered from his house or no recovery was made by the accused-appellant on 30.09.2009. Recovery of fake currency of Rs. 18,33,000/- along with printer etc., was also proved by P.W.4-Inspector Brij Bhusan Tiwari, who was also the member of the raiding party and the Investigating Officer. A suggestion is given to the witness that this witness was not able to correctly state the direction of the door of house of the appellant. Ex.Ka-9 is the site plan of the house of the appellant while Ex.Ka-7 was the place of arrest and recovery outside the Manak Nagar railway station. It is a minor contradiction which could not be helpful to the appellant. P.W.4-Inspector Brij Bhushan Tiwari was entrusted with the investigation of the case, thereafter, on the basis of the statement made by the appellant he recovered the fake currency on the pointing out of the appellant from his house, thereafter, he handed over the investigation to S.I. Kripa Shanker Dixit. There is no discrepancy or contradiction in the statement of P.W.4-Inspector Brij Bhushan Tiwari and P.W.1-Inspector Bhanu Pratap Singh. Both were the members of recovery party. Hence we are of the considered view that statement of P.W.1-Inspector Bhaun Pratap Singh and P.W.4-Inspector Brij Bhushan Tiwari are fully reliable. No doubt, it is true that witnesses of recovery are police personnel. In Madhu alias Madhuranatha and another v. State of Karnataka, [ (2014) 12 SCC 419 ] it has been held that: "18. The term "witness" means a person who is capable of providing information by way of deposing as regards relevant facts, via an oral statement, or a statement in writing, made or given in court, or otherwise. In Pradeep Narayan Madaonkar v. State of Maharashtra, [ (1995) 4 SCC 255 ] this Court dealt with the issue of the requirement of the examination of an independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police witness requires corroboration. The Court held that though the same must be subject to strict scrutiny, however, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in the investigation or in the prosecution. However, as far as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought. 19. However, as far as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought. 19. Thus, a witness is normally considered to be independent unless he springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has cause to bear such enmity against the accused so as to implicate him falsely. In view of the above, there can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon if it inspires confidence." 14. In Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, [ (2013) 14 SCC 434 ] it has been held that: "35. The term witness, means a person who is capable of providing information by way of deposing as regards relevant facts, via an oral statement, or a statement in writing, made or given in the court, or otherwise. In Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra [ (1995) 4 SCC 255 ] this Court examined the issue of the requirement of the examination of an independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police witness requires corroboration. The Court therein held that the same must be subject to strict scrutiny. However, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belonged to the police force, and are either interested in the investigating or the prosecuting agency. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars, should be sought. 36. Thus, a witness is normally considered to be independent, unless he springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has cause, to bear such enmity against the accused, so as to implicate him falsely. In view of the above, there can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness, or that his deposition cannot be relied upon." 15. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that police personnel have any enmity with the accused. Two defence witnesses are produced, which are of no help to accused. D.W.1-Sudha Chauhan has given hear say statement that she had not heard that any fake currency was recovered from the appellant. D.W.2-Devjit has stated that no recovery was made from the house of the appellant. Two defence witnesses are produced, which are of no help to accused. D.W.1-Sudha Chauhan has given hear say statement that she had not heard that any fake currency was recovered from the appellant. D.W.2-Devjit has stated that no recovery was made from the house of the appellant. This witness is residing about 300 metres away from the house of appellant. It is admitted by this witness that Krishna Kumar, brother of the appellant is in jail in connection with the printing of fake currency. It is also the prosecution version that brother of appellant, Krishna Kumar, has been sent to jail in the matter of recovery of fake currency, thereafter, accused-appellant had started doing this job in place of his brother. This fact is fully corroborated by the statement of D.W.2-Devjit. Hence, statement of D.W.2 is also in no way supports the appellant. Report of the Currency Note Press, Nasik Maharashtra was received, wherein it was opined that recovered notes were not genuine and were counterfeit notes/note sheets. Hence, we are of the considered view that even if no public witness is produced it does not adversely effect the prosecution version. 16. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that a fake and concocted case is levelled against the accused as police personnel wanted to get reward of making a false recovery of fake currency from the accused. We are not inclined to accept the argument. No evidence has been produced by the defence to show that the police personnel were interested to get reward out of the arrest of the accused-appellant. Further even no suggestion was given to any witness in this regard. 17. We are of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has rightly considered and appreciated the prosecution evidence and found the accused guilty of the charges levelled against him. Learned lower court has rightly convicted the accused. 18. So far as the sentence is concerned, learned Trial Court has imposed the maximum penalty of life imprisonment under different sections and fine also. 19. Expression 'counterfeit' is defined in Section 28 IPC, which is as under: "28. 'Counterfeit' - A person is said to 'counterfeit' who causes thing to resemble another thing, intended my means of that resemblance to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised. Explanation 1. 19. Expression 'counterfeit' is defined in Section 28 IPC, which is as under: "28. 'Counterfeit' - A person is said to 'counterfeit' who causes thing to resemble another thing, intended my means of that resemblance to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised. Explanation 1. - It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact. Explanation 2. - When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing, and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practised." 20. Section 489-A to 489-E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. The object of the legislature in enacting these provisions is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency notes and banknotes. 21. Section 489-A not only deals with complete act of counterfeiting but also covers the case where the accused performs any part of the process of counterfeiting. Therefore, if the material shows that the accused knowingly performed any part of the process of counterfeiting, Section 489-A becomes applicable. 22. Similarly Section 489-B relates to using as genuine forged or counterfeited currency notes or banknotes. The object of the legislature enacting this section is to stop the circulation of forged notes by punishing all persons who knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged do any act which could lead to their circulation. 23. Section 489-C deals with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeited currency notes or banknotes punishable. Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeited notes are necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Sections 489-C and 489-D. As was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese, [ (1986) 4 SCC 746 ], the expression "currency notes" is large and wide enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of any country. Section 489-C is not restricted to Indian currency note alone but it includes the dollar also and it applies to American dollar bills. 24. Section 489-C is not restricted to Indian currency note alone but it includes the dollar also and it applies to American dollar bills. 24. The wording of Section 489-D is very wide and would clearly cover a case where a person is found in possession of machinery, instrument or materials for the purpose of being used for counterfeiting currency notes, even though the machinery, instruments or materials so found were not all the material particular required for the purpose of counterfeiting. 25. In K. Hashim v. State of T.N., [ (2005) 1 SCC 237 ], Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the provisions of counterfeiting in detail. Sections 489-A to 489-E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. Object of the legislature in enacting these provisions is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency notes and banknotes. 26. Huge counterfeit currency has been recovered from the possession of accused-appellant which could not be said to be used for genuine purpose. Economy of a country is the backbone for the development of the country. If economy of a country is disturbed by using forged or counterfeit currency then it would be an offence not only against a single person rather whole country. We are of the considered view that the learned lower court by imposing maximum penalty has rightly sentenced the accused-appellant. 27. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. 28. Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, dismissed. 29. Conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court is confirmed. 30. Accused-appellant is in jail. He shall serve out sentence as imposed by the learned Trial Court. 31. Office is directed to certify this order forthwith to the court concerned and to send back the lower court record to ensure compliance.