JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As all these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat one by the State for enhancement of the sentence and others by the original accused challenging their conviction for the offence under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the "learned trial Court") passed in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2008, by which, the learned trial Court has convicted the original accused for the offence under Section 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentence the original accused to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months, the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2013 and original accused No. 1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 2013 and original accused No. 2 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1173 of 2013. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court in so far as sentence imposed by the learned trial Court while convicting the original accused for the offence under Section 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code imposing sentence of 5 years RI only, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1359 of 2013 under Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. 3. 3. The case of the prosecution is that Shri R.R. Survaiya, Police Sub Inspector, D.C.B, Police Station, Surat had filed the complaint before the DCB Police Station, Surat that the said Police Sub Inspector as well as other police staff were remaining present in their duty at DCB Police Station and during that time head constable Ghanshyambhai Khodidas Gadhavi has received the secret information that one black colour Hero Honda CD-100 No. GJ-5-S-6217 was to come from Puna Simada Road, Vijaynagar Society and one of the person Bipinbhai Savani and his friend namely Sanjay Rupapara were to come on the said motor cycle with the fake currency note and they were passing from Varachha to Katargam on Alkapuri Bridge and as such all the police staff including said complainant standing nearby Alkapuri Bridge, Katargam as per the information and therefore the said complainant as well as A.S.I. Bhogilal Nagindas, Head constable Rameshbhai Dalpatbhai, Police Constable Nareshbhai Balubhai, Police Constable Surendrasinh Chandrasinh, Police Constable Yogendrasinh Narendrasinh, Police Constable, Anil Bhimrao and two panch witnesses and they have also informed the concerned police staff about the said secret information and the motor-cycle number and they have also informed the information to the Panchas and Police staff. He has also narrated that police constable Nareshbhai Balubhai of their learn have also taken the investigation kits with their vehicle and they were reached in the said place in the private vehicles and the said police staff and Panchas were standing nearby said Alkapuri Bridge at Katargam and on the eastern side of the said bridge and during that time as per the information, one motor-cycle of the said number had come from Ashwanikumar Road, wherein two persons were sitting in the said motor cycle, for that they have cordoned the motor cycle and informed that motor cycle kept in side and they have given introduction about the police to the said persons of the motor-cycle. They have also asked the name of the said motor cycle rider before the Panehas and they have disclosed their names as Bipinbhai Bhimjibhai Savani, aged about 30 years, at present residing at 167, Vijaynagar Society Vibhag-l, Yogi Chowk, Puna Simada Road, Surat and original village Jalia, Taluka Gariadhar, Dist.: Bhavnagar and they have searched his body and cloths wherein they have found currency notes of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- from the pocket of pent and looking to the said currency notes, it appears that. it is a original currency note, but they have minutely seen the said currency notes and papers of the said notes which are not according to original papers and colour accurately and found different from the original currency notes and for that they have also seen the details about the notes wherein it appears that lot of notes having same series and same number and therefore they have come to know that the said notes are fake currency and notes of 23 number Rs. 1,000/- denomination No. 4AN 475993 total Rs. 23,000/- fake currency note as well as 33 number of Rs. 1000/- denomination No. 4AE 509902 total Rs. 33,000/- fake currency notes as Well as 8 number of Rs. 500/- denomination NO. OAR 641890 total Rs. 4000/-. They have also searched left side of other pocket of pent wherein they have also found currency notes of 4 of Rs. 100/- and 2 number of Rs. 50/- denomination and as such total Rs. 500/- original notes have been find out from the said person. Thereafter, they have asked the other person, who was sitting backside of the motor cycle and they asked the name of said person, he has disclosed his name before the witnesses namely Sanjay Mansukhbhai Rupapara, aged about 25 years, residing at 89, Bhaktinzlgar Society Vibhag-l. Near Hirabaug, Dharamuagar Road, Varachha, Surat original resident at Ishara, Taluka Upleta, Dist.: Rajkot and they have also searched his body and cloths before the witnesses and they have found from his pocket fake currency notes of 21 number notes of Rs. 1,000/- denomination No. 9 As.951738 total Rs. 21,000/- as well as 27 number notes of Rs. 500/- denomination No. 8FV 392217 total Rs. 13,500/- fake r currency notes as well as another 6 number notes of Rs. 5,00/- denomination No. 8AP 137974 total Rs. 3000/- and also found another 10 number notes of Rs. 500/- denomination No. 9FV 245553 total Rs. 500/-. They have also searched back side of other pocket of Jens pent wherein they have also found original currency notes of 2 number notes of Rs. 100/- and as such total Rs. 200/- original notes have been found from the pocket of the said person. 500/- denomination No. 9FV 245553 total Rs. 500/-. They have also searched back side of other pocket of Jens pent wherein they have also found original currency notes of 2 number notes of Rs. 100/- and as such total Rs. 200/- original notes have been found from the pocket of the said person. They have also noted the chassis number of the said motor-cycle and they have also asked the said persons about the ownership of the motorcycle, wherein said Bipinbhai has told the police team before the witnesses that the said motorcycle was belonging to- him. They have also asked the details about the fake currency notes of total 77 numbers of Rs. 1000/- as well as fake currency notes of total 51 number of Rs. 500/- in all Rs. 1,02,500/- of total 125 numbers fake ' currency notes and they have informed before the Witnesses that they have taken the said notes from Dineshbhai Bhikhabhai Patel and Jayminkumar Manubhai Patel, who are residing at 51, Kalidas Hindu Nagar Society, Chhaparabhatha, Amroli Road, Surat and as such police have also seized the said notes and prepared detailed panchnama. Then after, the police team have also raid the said place wherein they have found the accused Nos. 3 and 4 Dineshbhai Bhikhabhai Patel and Jayminkumar Manubhai Patel at 51, Kalidas Hindu Nagar Society, Chhaparabhatha, Amroli Road, Surat, wherein they have also found 1000/- denomination 500/- denomination notes of the different series and colour printers, scanner, printing machine and they have also found that the said Dmeshbhar Bhikhabhal Patel and Jayminkumar Manubhai Patel were printing fake currency notes at the place of 51, Kalidas Hindu Nagar Society, Chhaparabhatha, Amroli Road, Surat. The police team have also sealed the said Muddamal articles of the colour printers, scanner, printing machine, printing papers and fake currency notes from 51, Kalidas Hindu Nagar Society, Chhaparahhatha, Amroli Road, Surat and started investigation and it also revealed that the said above mentioned accused Nos. 1 to 4 have committed the conspiracy and they were trying to circulate the fake currency notes in the open market and as such police team have seized the fake currency notes of Rs. 1,02,500/- with the above mentioned Hero Honda CD-100 motorcycle along with above mentioned papers and printing machine, scanner and printer and they have also seized the fake currency notes from the said place during the time of raid also. 1,02,500/- with the above mentioned Hero Honda CD-100 motorcycle along with above mentioned papers and printing machine, scanner and printer and they have also seized the fake currency notes from the said place during the time of raid also. 3.1. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet against all the accused for the offences under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of learned JMFC. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Surat, which was transferred to the Court of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No. 87 of 2008. 3.2. That the learned trial court framed the charge against all the accused vide Exh. 6 for the aforesaid offences. All the accused pleaded not guilty and denied having committed any offence and therefore, all of them came to be tried by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences. 3.3. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined following 11 witnesses: PW No. Name of the witness Exh. No. 1 Kanubhai Ganpatbhai Brahmbhatt 11 2 Govindbhai Karamshibhai Rabari 14 3 Kishorbhai Kanubhai Shah 15 4 Yusuf Dawoodbhai Shaikh 18 5 Dharmeshbhai Shashikant Shah 20 6 Bhagwatibhai Punjabhai Patel 21 7 Alima Saukat Samim Ahamad Kagji 23 8 Ghanshyamdan Khodidan Ishrani 29 9 Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Sarvaiya 37 10 Nandkishor Shrawan Chaudhary 50 11 Parbatsinh Mangalsinh Parmar 65 3.4. Trough the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution also brought on record the following documentary evidence: Exh. No. Particulars 66 Suchipatra 38 Complaint of complainant Shri R.R. Sarvaiya 12 Panchnama 22 Receipt of computer purchased by the accused. 51 Ravangi Nondh. 52 FSL receipt. 53 Registration of detention of accused in Station diary. 54 Permission for charge sheet. 3.5. After completion of examining prosecution witnesses and submitting the closing pursis, further statement of all the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded. The original accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed their additional further statement, in which, they stated that they were not having knowledge about fake currency notes and they were working with the original accused No. 3 who called them for their personal domestic work and gave the said notes to them for Angadiya. The original accused Nos. The original accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed their additional further statement, in which, they stated that they were not having knowledge about fake currency notes and they were working with the original accused No. 3 who called them for their personal domestic work and gave the said notes to them for Angadiya. The original accused Nos. 3 and 4 also filed their additional statements mainly submitting that they are falsely implicated in the case and that they were not in occupation, possession and owner of the premises, in which, during the raid the printing machine, scanner and other materials along with fake currency notes were found. 3.6. That at the conclusion of the trial by impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Court has held all the accused guilty for the offence under Section 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced all the accused to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further six months SI for each of the offence. However, as such no separate order has been passed by the learned trial Court whether all the sentence run concurrently or not. 3.7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, original accused have preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 737 of 2013, 959 of 2013 and 1173 of 2013 challenging their conviction and State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1359 of 2013 for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. 4. Shri Nirad Buch, learned advocate has appeared with Shri Yash Nanavati, learned advocate for the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 and Shri D.P. Kinariwala, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original accused No. 1 and Shri Bhagel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of original accused No. 2. Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State. 4.1. Shri Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has materially erred in convicting the original accused Nos. 3 and 4. 4.2. Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State. 4.1. Shri Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has materially erred in convicting the original accused Nos. 3 and 4. 4.2. It is submitted that as such the prosecution has miserably failed to establish and prove the occupation, possession and ownership of the premises, which was raided and from where the fake currency note of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/-, Printer, Scanner and other materials were recovered. 4.3. It is further submitted by Shri Buch, learned advocate for the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 that in the facts and circumstances of the case in the present case as such prosecution has not led any cogent evidence to establish and prove the ownership of the premises in question. 4.4. It is further submitted by Shri Buch, learned advocate for the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 that in the present case even the prosecution has suppressed the material evidence i.e. electricity bill of the premises in question which was seized from the premises and so stated in the panchnama of the raid. 4.5. It is further submitted by Shri Buch, learned advocate for the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the defence on behalf of the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 so stated by them in their further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2013 and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of convicting the original accused Nos. 3 and 4. 5. Shri D.P. Kinariwala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused No. 1 has vehemently submitted that in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused No. 1 had in knowledge that fake currency notes were recovered from them, were as such fake and despite such knowledge, they were in the process of circulating the fake currency notes. 5.1. 5.1. It is further submitted that while convicting the original accused No. 1 the learned trial Court has not properly considered the defence of the original accused No. 1 so stated by him in his additional further statement that he was serving with the original accused No. 3 and he gave these currency notes to the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for Aangadiya, which was to be given to one Aangadiya Madhav and when they were going to Aangadiya, the police intercepted them and recovered the fake currency notes from them. It is submitted that therefore, as such original accused No. 1 and even the accused No. 2 were not having any knowledge that the notes which were given by the original accused No. 3 were fake currency notes, the learned trial Court has materially erred in convicting the original accused No. 1 and even accused No. 1. 5.2. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bijal Jagabhai Bambhva, Bharvad v. State of Gujarat reported in 2016 (1) GLR 300 . Shri Kinariwala, learned advocate for the original accused No. 1 has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1979 SC 1705 as well as another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR 2001 SC 3074 , also in support of his above submissions. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order and acquit the original accused No. 1. 6. Shri Bhagel, learned advocate for the original accused No. 2 has reiterated what is submitted by Shri Kinariwala earned advocate for the original accused No. 1 and as such adopted the submission made by Shri Kinariwala earned advocate for the original accused No. 1. 7. All these appeals preferred by the original accused are vehemently opposed by Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 7.1. It is vehemently submitted that in the present case so far as original accused Nos. 7. All these appeals preferred by the original accused are vehemently opposed by Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 7.1. It is vehemently submitted that in the present case so far as original accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, in fact not only fake currency notes were recovered from their possession, in fact as such they had admitted that fake currency notes were found from their possession, which can be seen from their additional further statements. 7.2. It is further submitted that as such on the basis of the information given by the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 that fake currency notes which were recovered from their possession, were given by the original accused No. 3 and even original accused No. 1 and 2 shown the place of the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 which were raided by the Police Officer from where the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 were found and even the fake currency notes of the same numbers which were found from the possession of the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with one Printer Machine including Scanner, papers and other materials. 7.3. It is submitted that even no evidence have been led by the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 and/or original accused Nos. 3 and 4 in their defence. It is submitted that in fact even original accused Nos. 3 and 4 have not disputed their presence in the premises at the time of raid and that as such both of them were alone even in the premises in question from where fake currency notes, printers, papers and other materials were found. It is submitted that therefore, in view of the aforesaid clinching evidence on record and that on appreciation of evidence when the learned trial Court has convicted all the accused, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error. 7.4. Now, so far as contention on behalf of the original accused Nos. It is submitted that therefore, in view of the aforesaid clinching evidence on record and that on appreciation of evidence when the learned trial Court has convicted all the accused, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error. 7.4. Now, so far as contention on behalf of the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 that they had no knowledge that the notes which were given by the original accused No. 3, which were given for the purpose of Aangadiya were fake currency notes and therefore, they could not have been convicted by the learned trial Court is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that looking to the conduct and even the case so pleaded by them in the additional further statement, the aforesaid defence cannot be accepted and has no substance. It is submitted that as such currency notes were given to them by the accused No. 3 (even according to their own case) and that they were not in the packet and/or in cover. It is submitted that even the fake currency notes were also found from the pockets of the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 also. It is submitted that therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be believed that original accused Nos. 1 and 2 had no knowledge that currency notes which were given to the accused No. 3, were fake currency notes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, decisions which are relied upon by the learned advocate for the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the appeals preferred by the accused. 8. Heard Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri Nirad Buch, learned advocate for the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2013) and Shri D.P. Kinariwala, learned advocate for the original accused No. 1 (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 2013) and Shri Baghel, learned advocate for the original accused No. 2 (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1173 of 2013). We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 9. 3 and 4 (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2013) and Shri D.P. Kinariwala, learned advocate for the original accused No. 1 (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 2013) and Shri Baghel, learned advocate for the original accused No. 2 (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1173 of 2013). We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such by impugned judgment and order learned trial Court has held all the original accused guilty for the offence under Section 489A, 489 and 489C r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced all the accused to undergo five years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the respective offences under Section 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code respectively. As observed herein above, original accused have preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 737 of 2013, 959 of 2013 and 1173 of 2013 challenging their conviction and the State has preferred Criminal Appeal (for enhancement) No. 1359 of 2013. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case there was a recovery of 56 notes of Rs. 1000/- and 8 notes of Rs. 500/- all were found to be counter fake from the possession of the original accused No. 1, more particularly, from the pocket of the jeans pent of the original accused No. 1 and 21 notes of Rs. 1000/- and 43 notes of Rs. 500/- all found to be counter fake from the pocket of the pent of the original accused No. 2. Considering the defence and the further statement of the original Nos. 1 and 2 recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, original accused Nos. 1 and 2 as such have not disputed the recovery of the aforesaid counter fake notes from them. However, their only defence was that they were working with original accused Nos. 3 and 4 occasionally, they told them to send the said notes through Aangadiya and therefore, they were going to Aangadiya and that they had no knowledge that notes which were given to them of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- were fake notes. However, it is required to be noted that the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 occasionally, they told them to send the said notes through Aangadiya and therefore, they were going to Aangadiya and that they had no knowledge that notes which were given to them of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- were fake notes. However, it is required to be noted that the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to prove their defence. Both of them have failed to prove by leading evidence that as such they were serving with the original accused No. 3 and/or accused No. 4. It is also required to be noted that even they have failed to prove that they were going to office of Aangadiya for parcel as per the instruction given by the original accused Nos. 3 and 4. All the aforesaid fake currency notes of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- were found from the pocket of the original accused Nos. 1 and 2. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has as such rightly convicted original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Sections 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned advocate for the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 are not able to point out any defect in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences are on appreciation of evidence and neither they are perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. As observed herein above, on the contrary original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have admitted having recovered the fake currency notes from them while they were traveling on the motorcycle and they were intercepted by the police near bridge. 9.1. As observed herein above, on the contrary original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have admitted having recovered the fake currency notes from them while they were traveling on the motorcycle and they were intercepted by the police near bridge. 9.1. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagabhai Bambhva, Bharvad (supra) by the learned advocate for the original accused No.1 is concerned, on considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases and considering the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that said decision shall not be of any assistance to the original accused No.1. 9.2. Under the circumstances, impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court holding the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty for the aforesaid offence is hereby confirmed. 10. Now, so far as impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting original accused Nos. 3 and 4 for the offence under Sections 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such it has come on record that after original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were intercepted and aforesaid fake currency notes were found from them, the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 disclosed the names of the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 and also shown the place of the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 and immediately thereafter there was raid conducted by the Investigating Officer at the premises situated at Kalidasnagar which was found to be in exclusive possession of the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 and from the said premises the fake currency notes of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- were found from the possession of the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 and from the aforesaid premises situated at Kalidasnagar fake currency notes of Rs. 1000/- which were half printed on one side along with all in one xerox machine/scanner, plain papers, ink etc. were found and recovered. The recovery of the aforesaid has been established and proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence by examining panch witness as well as investigating officer and the officer who conducted raid. 1000/- which were half printed on one side along with all in one xerox machine/scanner, plain papers, ink etc. were found and recovered. The recovery of the aforesaid has been established and proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence by examining panch witness as well as investigating officer and the officer who conducted raid. It is required to be noted that at the time of raid and recovery of the aforesaid materials, original accused Nos. 3 and 4 were found at Kalidasnagar and they were found to be in exclusive possession of the said premises. From the further statement of the original accused Nos. 3 and 4, it appears that the defence of the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 that they were not the owner of the premises which was raided. However, it is required to be noted that at the time of raid, original accused Nos. 3 and 4 were found to be in exclusive possession and the aforesaid counter fake/fake currency notes and other materials to manufacture the fake currency notes including all in one printer of HP company with half printed 1000 rupee currency notes were found/recovered. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that even the number on the said fake currency notes of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- were same numbers, which were found different on the fake currency recovered from the original accused Nos. 1 and 2. In view of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence on record led by the prosecution, when the learned trial Court has convicted the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 for the aforesaid offences under Section 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error which calls for the interference of this Court. 10.1. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 for the offence under Section 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed. 11. 3 and 4 for the offence under Section 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed. 11. Now, so far as Criminal Appeal No. 1359 of 2013 preferred by the State it has been preferred for enhancement of sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that while convicting the original accused the learned trial Court has imposed sentence to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months under Sections 489A r/w Section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It cannot be disputed that Court must impose the appropriate punishment commensurate with the gravity of the offence. It is required to be noted that despite the fact that learned trial Court in para 21 has come to the conclusion that in the present case there is a provision for the imprisonment upto life or 10 years and fine but in the present case it is the duty of the Court that Court has to look into the duty towards the society, towards the nation as well as Court should pass the imprisonment order in such a way that such type of offence should not be committed in future and this is case wherein economy of the nation have been directly affected in such type of cases, the learned trial Court has imposed sentence of only 5 years RI under Section 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, as such while imposing sentence there is no observations by the learned Judge that the imposing punishment of 5 years RI for the offence under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code committed by the accused for which they have been convicted is adequate punishment/sentence and/or same is commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 12. Thus, as such while imposing sentence there is no observations by the learned Judge that the imposing punishment of 5 years RI for the offence under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code committed by the accused for which they have been convicted is adequate punishment/sentence and/or same is commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 12. In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. reported in (1994) 2 SCC 220 in para 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment has held in para 15 as under: "...Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime." 12.1. In the recent decision in the case of Shantilal Meena (supra) whatever the factors which are required to be considered by the Court while imposing of the sentence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 to 19 and 21 and 22 has observed and held as under: "13. In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and another v. State of Gujarat, at paragraph-99, this Court reiterated the position in the following words "It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. " 14. In a recent decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bablul, it was held as follows: "10. It is well-settled proposition of law that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and consciousness of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence commensurate with the gravity and nature of crime. One should keep in mind the social interest and consciousness of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence commensurate with the gravity and nature of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is, therefore, the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding sentence as awarding a lesser sentence encourages any criminal and as a result of the same society suffers." 15. After extensively referring to the objects of punishment in State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh, at paragraph-16, this Court held that "16. ...undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence...." 16. In Mahesh s/o Ram Narain and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, while referring to the cruel acts of the convicted accused, this Court observed that; "6. to give the lesser punishment for the appellants would be to render the justice system of this country suspect. The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon". 17. In Ravi alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, this Court held that the sentence should reflect the social conscience of society and that the sentencing process has to be stern, where it should be. 18. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai and another v. State of Gujarat and others, at paragraph-7, it was held that "...protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence". 19. In Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar and others, this Court took the view that 11.... "the cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence." 21. To quote Friedmann, "Generally, the philosophy of deterrence still prevails in modern criminology. We continue to be concerned with preventing, by appropriate punitive sanctions, both the individual offender and other members of society from the repetition of crime, or the imitation on the part of others by similar actions" 11. 22. To quote Friedmann, "Generally, the philosophy of deterrence still prevails in modern criminology. We continue to be concerned with preventing, by appropriate punitive sanctions, both the individual offender and other members of society from the repetition of crime, or the imitation on the part of others by similar actions" 11. 22. Unless the courts award appropriately deterrent punishment taking note of the nature of the offence under the PC Act and the status of the public servant at the relevant time, people will lose faith in the justice delivery system and the very object of the legislation on prevention of corruption will be defeated. The court is the conscience of the statute and hence its judgments should project and promote the policy aims of punishment, lest it should shake the faith of common man in courts. The judgment on sentence shall not shock the common man. It should reflect the public abhorrence of the crime. The court has thus a duty to protect and promote public interest and build up public confidence in efficacy of rule of law. Misplaced sympathy or unwarranted leniency will send a wrong signal to the public giving room to suspect the institutional integrity, affecting the credibility of its verdict. Thus, while awarding sentence in cases under the PC Act, the court should bear in mind the expectation of the people of its paramount duty to prevent corruption in society by providing prompt conviction and stern sentence." 12.2. In the case of Shimbhu and Another v. State of Hariyana reported in (2014) 13 SCC 318 , while considering the sentencing policy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 11 as under: "The crucial stage in every criminal proceeding is the stage of sentencing. It is the most complex and difficult stage in the judicial process. The Indian legal system confers ample discretion on the judges to levy the appropriate sentence. However, this discretion is not unfettered in nature rather various factors like the nature, gravity, the manner and the circumstances of the commission of the offence, the personality of the accused, character, aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances, antecedents etc., cumulatively constitute as the yardsticks for the judges to decide on the sentence to be imposed. Indisputably, the sentencing Courts shall consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and impose a sentence commensurate with the crime committed." 12.3. Indisputably, the sentencing Courts shall consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and impose a sentence commensurate with the crime committed." 12.3. In the case of State of M.P. v. Bala Alias Balaram reported in (2005) 8 SCC 1 in para 13 to 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: "13. The rationale for advocating the award of a punishment commensurate with the gravity of the offence and its impact on society, is to ensure that a civilized society does not revert to the days of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Not awarding a just punishment might provoke the victim or its relatives to retaliate in kind and that is what exactly is sought to be prevented by the criminal justice system we have adopted. 14. Even in the time of Kautilya, the need for awarding just punishment was recognized. According to Kautilya, "whoever imposes severe punishment becomes repulsive to people, while he who awards mild punishment becomes contemptible. The ruler just with the rod is honoured. When deserved punishment is given, it endows the subjects with spiritual good, material well being and pleasures of the senses." (See Kautilyan Jurisprudence by V.K. Gupta under the head 'Nature and Scope of punishment'). This philosophy is woven into our statute and our jurisprudence and it is the duty of those who administer the law to bear this in mind. 15. This Court has on a number of occasions indicated that the punishment must fit the crime and that it is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment depending on the degree of criminality and desirability for imposing such punishment. In Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka [ (1983) 2 S.C.C. 330 ] this Court observed, " A sentence or pattern of sentence which fails to take due account of the gravity of the offence can seriously undermine respect for law. In Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka [ (1983) 2 S.C.C. 330 ] this Court observed, " A sentence or pattern of sentence which fails to take due account of the gravity of the offence can seriously undermine respect for law. It is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment as a measure of social necessity as a means of deterring other potential offenders." In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (1979) 3 S.C.C. 646 ] Justice Sen stated, "Judges are entitled to hold their own views, but it is the bounden duty of the Court to impose a proper punishment, depending upon the degree of criminality and the desirability to impose such punishment as a measure of social necessity, as a means of deterring other potential offenders." 16. It is not necessary to multiply authorities. In a recent decision in State of M.P. v. Munna Choubey & Another [ (2005) 2 S.C.C. 710 ], this question has again been dealt with. This Court observed: "Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system." 12.4. In the case of Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the principle of sentencing proportionality and adequacy of sentence. In the aforesaid decision while emphasizing the need for appropriate punishment in paragraph-36 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under:-- "36. Having discussed about the discretion, presently we shall advert to the duty of the court in the exercise of power while imposing sentence for an offence. In the aforesaid decision while emphasizing the need for appropriate punishment in paragraph-36 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under:-- "36. Having discussed about the discretion, presently we shall advert to the duty of the court in the exercise of power while imposing sentence for an offence. It is the duty of the court to impose adequate sentence, for one of the purposes of imposition of requisite sentence is protection of the society and a legitimate response to the collective conscience. The paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be proportionate. It is the answer of law to the social conscience. In a way, it is an obligation to the society which has reposed faith in the court of law to curtail the evil. While imposing the sentence it is the Court's accountability to remind itself about its role and the reverence for rule of law. It must evince the rationalized judicial discretion and not an individual perception or a moral propensity. But, if in the ultimate eventuate the proper sentence is not awarded, the fundamental grammar of sentencing is guillotined. Law cannot tolerate it; society does not withstand it; and sanctity of conscience abhors it. The old saying "the law can hunt one's past" cannot be allowed to be buried in an indecent manner and the rainbow of mercy, for no fathomable reason, should be allowed to rule. True it is, it has its own room, but, in all circumstances, it cannot be allowed to occupy the whole accommodation. The victim, in this case, still cries for justice. We do not think that increase in fine amount or grant of compensation under the Code would be a justified answer in law. Money cannot be the oasis. It cannot assume the centre stage for all redemption. Interference in manifestly inadequate and unduly lenient sentence is the justifiable warrant, for the Court cannot close its eyes to the agony and anguish of the victim and, eventually, to the cry of the society. Therefore, striking the balance we are disposed to think that the cause of justice would be best subserved if the respondent is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years apart from the fine that has been imposed by the learned trial Judge." 12.5. Therefore, striking the balance we are disposed to think that the cause of justice would be best subserved if the respondent is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years apart from the fine that has been imposed by the learned trial Judge." 12.5. Again in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the sentencing policy, the purpose/jurisprudential justification of awarding sentence (deterrence, retribution or rehabilitation) vis-à-vis nature of crime. In para 14, 16 and 17 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-- "14. The Law prohibits certain acts and/or conduct and treats them as offences. Any person committing those acts is subject to penal consequences which may be of various kind. Mostly, punishment provided for committing offences is either imprisonment or monetary fine or both. Imprisonment can be rigorous or simple in nature. Why those persons who commit offences are subjected to such penal consequences? There are many philosophies behind such sentencing justifying these penal consequences. The philosophical/jurisprudential justification can be retribution, incapacitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, or restoration. Any of the above or a combination thereof can be the goal of sentencing. 16. What follows from the discussion behind the purpose of sentencing is that if a particular crime is to be treated as crime against the society and/or heinous crime, then the deterrence theory as a rationale for punishing the offender becomes more relevant, to be applied in such cases. Therefore, in respect of such offences which are treated against the society, it becomes the duty of the State to punish the offender. Thus, even when there is a settlement between the offender and the victim, their will would not prevail as in such cases the matter is in public domain. Society demands that the individual offender should be punished in order to deter other effectively as it amounts to greatest good of the greatest number of persons in a society. It is in this context that we have to understand the scheme/philosophy behind Section 307 of the Code. 19. We would like to expand this principle in some more detail. We find, in practice and in reality, after recording the conviction and while awarding the sentence/punishment the Court is generally governed by any or all or combination of the aforesaid factors. 19. We would like to expand this principle in some more detail. We find, in practice and in reality, after recording the conviction and while awarding the sentence/punishment the Court is generally governed by any or all or combination of the aforesaid factors. Sometimes, it is the deterrence theory which prevails in the minds of the Court, particularly in those cases where the crimes committed are heinous in nature or depicts depravity, or lack morality. At times it is to satisfy the element of "emotion" in law and retribution/vengeance becomes the guiding factor. In any case, it cannot be denied that the purpose of punishment by law is deterrence, constrained by considerations of justice. What, then, is the role of mercy, forgiveness and compassion in law? These are by no means comfortable questions and even the answers may not be comforting. There may be certain cases which are too obvious namely cases involving heinous crime with element of criminality against the society and not parties inter se. In such cases, the deterrence as purpose of punishment becomes paramount and even if the victim or his relatives have shown the virtue and gentility, agreeing to forgive the culprit, compassion of that private party would not move the court in accepting the same as larger and more important public policy of showing the iron hand of law to the wrongdoers, to reduce the commission of such offences, is more important. Cases of murder, rape or other sexual offences etc. would clearly fall in this category. After all, justice requires long term vision. On the other hand, there may be, offences falling in the category where "correctional" objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage in contrast with "deterrence" philosophy. Punishment, whatever else may be, must be fair and conducive to good rather than further evil. If in a particular case the Court is of the opinion that the settlement between the parties would lead to more good; better relations between them; would prevent further occurrence of such encounters between the parties, it may hold settlement to be on a better pedestal. It is a delicate balance between the two inflicting interests which is to be achieved by the Court after examining all these parameters and then deciding as to which course of action it should take in a particular case." 12.6. It is a delicate balance between the two inflicting interests which is to be achieved by the Court after examining all these parameters and then deciding as to which course of action it should take in a particular case." 12.6. Even otherwise, while awarding suitable punishment a Presiding Officer/Judge is required to consider the object and purpose of the enactment of a particular Act and/of Statute. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reported in (2005) 1 SCC 237 the object of the Legislature in enacting Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code is not only to protect the economy of the protect the economy of the country but also provide adequate protection to currency note and bank notes. 12.7. It is to be noted that the offence under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code is an economic offence which as such is against the national economy and national interest. 12.8. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364 , it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Community acting through the State and the Public Prosecutor is also entitled to justice. The cause of the Community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The Community or the State is not a person-non-grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. It is further observed that the entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. The murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. However, an economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest. 12.9. In the case of Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1978 SC 1548 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has criticized giving lessor sentence for white collar crime. 12.9. In the case of Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1978 SC 1548 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has criticized giving lessor sentence for white collar crime. In the said decision that soft sentencing justice is gross injustice where many innocents are the potential victims. 12.10. In the case reported in (1996) 6 SCC 255 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there shall not be any leniency in economic offence. 12.11. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and the object and purpose of Section 489A to Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence imposed by the learned Presiding Officer/Judge cannot be said to be adequate and/or sufficient punishment commensurate with the gravity of the offence. It should be noted that such offence of fake currency are increasing and the country has faced severe economic imbalance. Notwithstanding stringent legislation having been made it has not been possible to eradicate the evil. Any leniency therefore, in economic offence will send a wrong signal. On the contrary, a massage must reach to such offenders that there shall not be any leniency shown with respect to such activities and/or offence and the same shall be dealt with Iron hand. All these aspects have not been addressed and/or considered by the learned Presiding Officer/Judge while awarding punishment/sentence to the respondent herein - original accused for the offence under Section 489A, 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, interference of this Court with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is called for and the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is required to be interfered with and is required to be enhanced. 13. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case that fake currency notes of huge amount was found from the original accused and that the original accused Nos. 3 and 4 were found manufacturing fake currency notes and in fact they were having printer, machine(all -in-one printer machine), blank papers, ink etc. and they were even circulating the currency notes, awarding sentence of 10 years RI can be said to be adequate and sufficient sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 14. 3 and 4 were found manufacturing fake currency notes and in fact they were having printer, machine(all -in-one printer machine), blank papers, ink etc. and they were even circulating the currency notes, awarding sentence of 10 years RI can be said to be adequate and sufficient sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 1173 of 2013 deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed and impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting the original accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence under Section 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed. 15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Criminal Appeal No. 1359 of 2013 is hereby allowed and while confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat passed in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2008 convicting the original accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences under Section 489A r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 489B r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489C r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is hereby modified so far as sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is concerned and original accused Nos. 1 to 4 are hereby directed to undergo 10 years RI for the offence under Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code, 10 years RI for the offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code and 10 years RI for the offence under Section 489C r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Fine imposed by the learned trial Court for the respective offence is hereby maintained. All the sentence to run concurrently. It goes without saying that any sentence already undergone for any of the offence shall be given set off in accordance with law. Fine imposed by the learned trial Court for the respective offence is hereby maintained. All the sentence to run concurrently. It goes without saying that any sentence already undergone for any of the offence shall be given set off in accordance with law. It is reported that all the accused are on bail, there conviction being confirmed, their bail bond shall stand cancelled and all of them to be taken in custody to undergo remaining sentence as per the present judgment and order. Registry is directed to return the Record and Proceedings to the learned trial Court forthwith.