JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No. 2, Surendranagar in Sessions Case Nos. 100/2000 and 29/2001 dated 17/10/2006, by which the learned trial court has acquitted all the chargesheeted accused for the offences punishable under sections 489(a), (b), (c), 120B and 201 of Indian Penal Code, the State has preferred both these Criminal Appeals. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under:- 2.01. An offence being C.R. No. 1-54/2000 came to be registered before Muli Police Station against the respondents - accused for the offences punishable under sections 489(a), (b), (c), 120B and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant viz. Pramodkumar Ramanlal Dave, who was discharging his duty as Manager in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch, at the relevant time, had lodged the aforesaid First Information Report before Muli Police Station on 16/06/2000 at about 11.00 regarding the incident alleged to have been taken place on 12/6/2000 alleging inter-alia that the Head Cashier viz. Khantilal Jehaabhai Solanki and Accountant viz., Vijaykumar Vrajlal Dave of the Branch came to the complainant and told that Mulrajsinh Nitubha Parmar and his father resident of Gautamgadh came to deposit Rs. 21,070 in Account No. 379, wherein bundle of Rs. 100 bearing No. 5QR 253201 to 21070 was deposited, which was found to be fake currency notes. Therefore, for further verification, bundle of said currency notes was sent to R.B.I., Ahmedabad by the complainant and other staff members with Accountant viz., Vijaykumar Vrajlal Dave. Upon examining the said note by the R.B.I., Ahmedabad they have certified that the currency notes sent by the complainant were fake currency notes. Hence, initially the aforesaid First Information Report came to be registered with Muli Police Station for the offence under section 489(a), (b), (c). However, subsequently police submitted report for addition of sections 201 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. 2.02. The aforesaid First Information Report was initially investigated by Mr. Prabhudas Badarbhai Patel, investigating officer of Muli Police Station - P.W. No. 28. During the course of the investigation, he recorded statement of Mulrajsinh of village Gautamgadh, statement of Mahesh Solanki of village Sadla, statement of Vihabhai Rabari of village Kalmad. 2.03. 2.02. The aforesaid First Information Report was initially investigated by Mr. Prabhudas Badarbhai Patel, investigating officer of Muli Police Station - P.W. No. 28. During the course of the investigation, he recorded statement of Mulrajsinh of village Gautamgadh, statement of Mahesh Solanki of village Sadla, statement of Vihabhai Rabari of village Kalmad. 2.03. During the course of the investigation and from the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, it was revealed that one Ravubha Parmar-original accused No. 1 gave a bundle of 100 notes of Rs. 100 which was deposited in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Branch Muli and therefore, the investigating officer arrested the Ravubha Andubha Parmar - original accused No. 1. During the course of the investigation, names of other accused also came to be disclosed in commission of the offences and the circulation of the counterfeit currency notes and therefore, the said investigating officer arrested the original accused Nos. 1 to 7. He also recorded statements of the Bank Officers and sent the counterfeit currency notes which were deposited in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch, to the FSL. He also visited Mumbai to arrest the absconded accused Iqbal Habibbhai Saiyed. 2.04. After conclusion of the investigation, the investigation was handed over to one Keshavbharti Pasabharti Swami P.W. No. 27 - Police Inspector, Anti-terrorist Squad (Gujarat). He arrested original accused Nos. 6 and 7 on transfer warrant. 2.05. After conclusion of the investigation he filed chargesheet against the original accused Nos. 1 to 7 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Muli. Subsequent to filing of the chargesheet against the original accused Nos. 1 to 7, original accused No. 8 - Saukathabib @ Habibulla Faruki came to be arrested on transfer warrant and therefore, he subsequently on conclusion of the further investigation, filed chargesheet against the original accused No. 8 also. Therefore, all the original accused Nos. 1 to 8 came to be chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 489(a), (b), (c), 120B and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 2.06. As the case was exclusively triable by the learned court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate Committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, Surendranagar which were transferred to the Court of learned additional Sessions Judge and FTC No. 2, Surendranagar, which were numbered as Sessions Case No. 100/2000 (Qua original accused Nos. 2.06. As the case was exclusively triable by the learned court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate Committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, Surendranagar which were transferred to the Court of learned additional Sessions Judge and FTC No. 2, Surendranagar, which were numbered as Sessions Case No. 100/2000 (Qua original accused Nos. 1 to 7) and Sessions Case No. 29/2001 (Qua original accused No. 8). 2.07. That both the aforesaid Sessions Cases were ordered to be consolidated by the learned trial court. That the learned trial court framed Charge against the original accused Nos. 1 to 8 at Ex. 17 for the offences punishable under sections 489(a), (b), (c), 120B and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 2.08. All the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, all of them came to be tried by the learned trial court for the aforesaid offences. 2.09. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:- Oral Evidence PW No. Name of the Prosecution Witness Ex.No. 1 Pramadbhai Ramanlal Dave – informant 33 2 Rajendrasinh Ajitsinh Zala – Panch Witness 36 3 Karimbhai Gafurbhai Sayied – Panch Witness 38 4 Temubha Juvansinh Parmar – Panch Witness 40 5 Sukhdevsinh Shivubha Parmar – Panch Witness 42 6 Karimbhai Nurmohammadbhai – Panch Witness 43 7 Jayantibhai jivabhai Kesur – Panch Witness 47 8 Mularjsinh Nitubha Parmar - witness 50 9 Maheshkumar Mavsangbhai Solanki – Witness 51 10 Narayanbhai Govindbhai – Witness 52 11 Vishabhai Devayatbhai Rabari – Witness 53 12 Kanubhai Dharamshibhai patel – Witness 54 13 Vijaykumar Vrajlal Dave – Witness 55 14 Amrutbhai Morabhai Parmar – Witness 58 15 Yanasgabjar Kanaiyalal Tiwari – witness 59 16 Harshadkumar Chimanlal shah – Witness 61 17 Kesharkhan Sambhaji Malek – Witness 62 18 Narendrabhai Gokaldas Vanand – Witness 64 19 Rajeshkumar Valjibhai Panchal – Witness 70 20 Minkesh Vithaldas Panchal – Panch Witness 72 21 Hanubha Valubha Zala – Witness 73 22 Hasmukhbhai Khemchanddas Patel – Witness 78 23 Ishwarbhai Nathabhai Patel– Witness 80 24 Ganeshbhai Maganbhai Patel– Witness 83 25 Mahendrasinh Mahipatsinh Jadeja 85 26 Kantibhai Jehabhai Solanki – Witness 90 27 Keshavbharti Pasabharti Swami – Investigating Officer 97 28 Prabhudas Badarbhai Patel I.S.I – Investigating Officer 112 2.10. Through the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidences: Documentary Evidence Sr. Through the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidences: Documentary Evidence Sr. No. Particulars Ex.No. 1 F.I.R. 34 2 Copy of the letter addressed to R.B.I 35 3 Panchnama for seizure of the 1 bundle of counter felt currency note of Rs. 100 37 4 Panchnama regarding Seizure of the golden and silver ornaments from the residence of accused Iqbal Habib 39 5 Panchnama for seizure of 60 counter felt currency notes of Rs.500 41 6 Panchnama for seizure of 422 counter felt currency notes of Rs.500 44 7 Slip having number of the currency notes with signature of the Panchas. 45 8 Slip having number of the currency notes with signature of the Panchas. 48 9 Panchnama of the seizure of 3 notes of Rs. 100 49 10 Letter written by SBS Muli Branch. 56 11 Letter written by SBS Muli to PSI Muli. 57 12 Information Provide by the Telephone Officer regarding Phone No. 244337 of Sami. 65 13 Letter of BSNL regarding Phone No. 244337 68-69 14 Panchnama regarding of Seizure of Mobile phone frome the house of accused bharat Punamchand 71 15 Letter written by Dy. Police Commissioner Ahmedabad to BSNL for Providing printout of the telephone number 74 16 Letter written to BSNL, Visnagar. 75 17 Application Form for obtaining Phone No. 244337 79 18 Meter Reading Sheet of Phone No.244337 along with letter of the BSNL Mehsana. 86 19 Xerox of register regarding stamp paper 98 20 Order of the chief Police Officer, Gandhinagar for handing over the investigation 99 21 Letter written by PSI, Muli to ATS Ahmedabad 100 22 Letter regarding sending the Muddamal to the FSL 101 23 Receipt of the FSL for receipt of the Muddamal 102 24 Report of the FSL with forwarding letter. 103 25 Copy of the currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 100 104 26 Letter written by PSI, Muli to Director General of Police for investigation of the currency notes. 105 27 Letter written by Director General of Police to the PSI Muli. 106 28 Report of the SBS Muli to the BSNL Muli regarding receipt of counterfelt note of Rs.100 29 Guideline issued by Reserve Bank of India regarding currency note of Rs. 105 27 Letter written by Director General of Police to the PSI Muli. 106 28 Report of the SBS Muli to the BSNL Muli regarding receipt of counterfelt note of Rs.100 29 Guideline issued by Reserve Bank of India regarding currency note of Rs. 500 107 30 Printout of Mobiles 108 to 110 31 Panchnama of Rayan Hotel 113 32 Challan regarding deposit of Rs.21070 in Account No.379 of SBS Muli 114 33 Extract of register of Omkar Guest House regarding stay of accused 115 34 Extract of register of Vabhav Guest House regarding stay of accused 116 2.11. That the prosecution submitted closing pursis at Ex. 31. That thereafter, Further Statement of all the accused came to be recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the accused denied the charge framed against them and stated that a false case has been registered against them. 2.12. At the conclusion of the trial, on appreciation of evidence on record, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court has acquitted all the accused for the offences for which they were tried. Hence, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court acquitting the original accused Nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under sections 489(a), (b), (c), 120B and 201 of Indian Penal Code, the State has preferred both these Criminal Appeals under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the appellant - State and Ms. Amrita Ajmera, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 - original accused No. 1; Mr. Kishor Prajapati, learned advocate has appeared for Mr. Mehul Rathod, learned advocate on behalf of the respondent No. 2 - original accused No. 2; Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - original accused Nos. 3 and 4; Mr. Viren Dave, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 6 - original accused No. 6 and Mr. M.I.G. Mansuri, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 7 - original accused No. 7 and though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5 - original accused No. 5, in Criminal Appeal No. 2376 of 2006. 4.01. Mr. M.I.G. Mansuri, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 7 - original accused No. 7 and though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5 - original accused No. 5, in Criminal Appeal No. 2376 of 2006. 4.01. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the appellant - State and though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent - original accused No. 8, in Criminal Appeal No. 2377 of 2006. 4.02. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, the learned trial court has materially erred in acquitting the original accused. 4.03. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant State has vehemently submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has been successful in proving the fact that 100 currency notes of Rs. 100 deposited by one Mulrajsinh Parmar P.W. No. 8 in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch, were fake currency notes and/or counterfeit. It is submitted that the said notes were sent to the Reserve Bank of India and thereafter to the Forensic Science Laboratory and it has been found that the said 100 currency notes of Rs. 100 deposited by said Mulrajsinh Parmar were counterfeit and fake currency notes. It is submitted that said Mulrajsinh Parmar got the said notes from one Mahesh Solanki who received the said notes from one Vihabhai Rabari who received the said notes from original accused No. 1 - Ravubha Anadubha Parmar. It is submitted that, therefore, the learned trial court ought to have convicted all the original accused when the prosecution has been successful in proving and establishing the chain of events more particularly in proving the racket of circulating counterfeit currency notes. It is submitted that, the learned trial court ought to have convicted the original accused considering the deposition of P.W. No. 1 - Pramodbhai Ramanlal, who has been examined at Ex. 33 as well as deposition of P.W. No. 2 Rajendrasinh Arjunsinh Jhala, who has been examined at Ex. 36 and deposition of other prosecution witnesses. 4.04. Mr. It is submitted that, the learned trial court ought to have convicted the original accused considering the deposition of P.W. No. 1 - Pramodbhai Ramanlal, who has been examined at Ex. 33 as well as deposition of P.W. No. 2 Rajendrasinh Arjunsinh Jhala, who has been examined at Ex. 36 and deposition of other prosecution witnesses. 4.04. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant State has further submitted that even the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the original accused by examining the P.W. No. 13 - Vijaykumar Vrajlal Dave, who was serving as an Accountant in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch as well as P.W. No. 15 - Umashankar Tiwari, who has been examined at Ex. 59, who was discharging his duty as Head Cashier in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch. 4.05. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant State has further submitted that considering and relying upon the deposition of two investigating officers - P.W. Nos. 27 and 28, who are examined at Ex. Nos. 97 and 112, the learned trial court ought to have convicted the original accused. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow both these appeals and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and convict all the accused for the offences for which they were tried. Both these appeals are opposed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused. 5. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that in the present on appreciation of evidence the learned trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has been successful to prove the case against the accused and therefore, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the original accused. 5.01. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that both the appeals are as such against the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. It is submitted that therefore unless and until the findings recorded by the learned trial court are found to be either perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice, interference of this Court as an appellate court against the order of acquittal is not warranted. 5.02. It is submitted that therefore unless and until the findings recorded by the learned trial court are found to be either perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice, interference of this Court as an appellate court against the order of acquittal is not warranted. 5.02. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that in the present case, the concerned material witnesses, more particularly Prosecution Witnesses Nos. 8 to 12 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. 5.03. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that Mulrajsinh Parmar P.W. No. 8 deposited the 100 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100 with the State Bank of Saurashtra in the Loan Account of his father. 5.04. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that none of the Bank Officers who are examined by the prosecution has stated that Mulrajsinh Parmar P.W. No. 8 deposited the 100 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100 with the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch. 5.05. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, Mulrajsinh Parmar P.W. No. 8 got the said fake currency notes from one Mahesh Solanki, who received the said notes from one Vihabhai Rabari, who received the said notes from original accused No. 1 - Ravubha Anadubha Parmar. It is submitted that neither said Mahesh Solanki - P.W. No. 9 nor Vihabhai Rabari - P.W. No. 11 nor even Sarpanch Narayanbhai - P.W. No. 10 have supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed that they gave the counterfeit notes which ultimately reached in the hands of Mulrajsinh Parmar P.W. No. 8. It is submitted that in absence of any cogent evidence, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the original accused. 5.06. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that there is no recovery of any counterfeit notes from any of the accused, even as admitted by the investigating officer. 5.07. It is submitted that in absence of any cogent evidence, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the original accused. 5.06. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that there is no recovery of any counterfeit notes from any of the accused, even as admitted by the investigating officer. 5.07. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any connection with the respective accused. 5.08. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that the prosecution as failed to prove by leading cogent evidence and/or even by drawing Panchnama that original accused No. 3 Jayantibhai burnt fake currency notes of Rs. 500 in his shop. 5.09. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence and/or even by drawing Panchnama that original accused No. 1 Ravubha burnt fake currency notes of Rs. 100. 5.10. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that similarly the prosecution has failed to prove that the original accused No. 2 Nareshbhai purchased fertilizer from Kesharkhan Shambhaji Jat (Malek) P.W. No. 17 by paying Rs. 16,509 which was consisted of one bundle of Rs. 100. It is submitted that even the said prosecution witness Kesarkhan Shambaji Jat (Malek) has not supported the case of the prosecution. 5.11. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that similarly the prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that original accused No. 4 - Subhas Natvarlal Sopariwala burnt counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500 at his house situated behind Kapadiya Health Club, Bhatar Road, Surat. 5.12. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that the prosecution has even failed to prove the case against the original accused No. 7 - Bharat alias Javed Punamchand Prajapati that his brother Jayantilal Punamchand used the counterfeit currency notes despite having knowledge that the same are counterfeit currency notes. 5.13. 5.12. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that the prosecution has even failed to prove the case against the original accused No. 7 - Bharat alias Javed Punamchand Prajapati that his brother Jayantilal Punamchand used the counterfeit currency notes despite having knowledge that the same are counterfeit currency notes. 5.13. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that as such original accused No. 8 Shaukat-Habibn alias Habibulla Faruki, original accused No. 6 - Nurmohmad alias Bhaiya Yakub Saiyed came to be arrested by Transfer Warrants only and solely on the basis of statement of the co-accused. 5.14. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective accused have vehemently submitted that when on appreciation of the entire evidence on recorded when the learned trial court has acquitted the original accused and by giving cogent reasons and recording evidence on re-appreciation of evidence, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present appeals. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record from the Record and Proceedings received from the learned trial court. 6.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that all the accused came to be charged and tried for the offences punishable under sections for the offences punishable under sections 489(a), (b), (c), 120B and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The charge against the original accused Nos. 1 to 8 read as under:- "The complainant Pramodkumar Ramanlal Dave, Bank, Manager, State Bank of Saurashtra - Muli Branch lodged an F.I.R. to the effect that on 12/6/2000, the complainant was present on his duty as a Bank Managwer and at that point of time Head Cashier of the complainant's branch namely Kantibhai Jahabhai Solanki as well as Accountant Vijaybhai V. Dave informed the complainant that one Mulrajsinh Nitubha Parmar has come to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 21,070 of the mortgage A/c. No. 379 for which 100 notes of hundred denomination which means Rs. 21,070 of the mortgage A/c. No. 379 for which 100 notes of hundred denomination which means Rs. 10,000 which bear the number Y.Q.R. 253201 to Y.Q.R. 253300 along with other currency notes wherein bundle of notes appear to be counterfeited and therefore the same was sent to Accountant Vijaybhai V. Dave of Reserve Bank of India, Ahmedabad. The Reserve Bank of India found the currency notes to be counterfeited. During the course of investigation in the present case the house of absconded accused namely accused Iqbal Habib wherein certain gold and silver ornaments which was taken from one Patel Nareshbhai Chaturbhai after giving 3 bundles currency notes by Iqbalbhai to Nareshbhai and the same was mortgaged and further Iqbal Habibbhai has hidden currency notes of denomination of 500 behind his house below the Fridge in plastic bag which bear the number I.C.Q. 963941 to I.C.Q. 964000 wherein 60 notes were found out wherein the absconded accused Iqbal Habibbhai has also given/shown various currency notes from below bed having denomination of Rs. 500 of 96 notes which bear the number 4 A.K. 589501 to 4 A.K. 589535 to 589600 which were 91 notes and 4 A.K. 588801 to 4 A.K. 588845 as well as 4 A.K. 588851 to 4 A.K. 588872 as well as 4 A.K. 588874 to 4 A.K. 588890 as well as 4 A.K. 588894 to 4 A.I. 5888900 bearing Serial number notes of 500 denomination as well as third bundle was also consisting of 95 notes of 500 denomination which bear the number 4 A.K. 499501 to 4 A.K. 493513 as well as 4 A.K. 599515 to 4 A.K. 599516 as well as 4 A.K. 599521 to 4 A.K. 599600 and 4th bundle was consisting of 100 notes of 500 denomination bearing No. I.C.Q. 963901 to I.C.Q. 963940 and as such 42 currency notes were recovered from the absconded accused Iqbal Habib Saiyed and the accused No. 3 Jayantilal Punamchand Prajapati has burnt 400 currency notes of 500 denomination in his shop and not that much only but accused No. 3 Jayantilal Punamchand Prajapati has also hidden currency notes of 500 denomination in the house of Vamanbhai Madhavbhai Maratha as well as accused No. 1 Ravubha Anadubha Parmar was also possessing counterfeited currency notes of 100 denomination which was burnt by accused No. 1 Ravubha Anadubha upon the fear of getting caught hold. Further accused No. 1 has given counterfeited 100 currency notes of 100 denomination which means 10,000 to Vihabhai Rabari which was in turn forwarded to Maheshkumar Mavsangbhai Rajput by Vihabhai Rabari and these currency notes was also given by Maheshbhai Mavsangbhai Mulrajsinh Nitubha and Mulrajsinh went to deposit the said counterfeited currency notes in the bank of complainant wherein it was found that the said currency notes are counterfeited as well as accused No. 1 Ravubha Andubha was possessing from the bundle of 100 currency notes of 100 denomination which means 20,000 and the same was counterfeited currency notes which was possessed despite knowing the fact that the same was counterfeited currency notes and Dharamsibhai was asked to take care of the same. Further, accused No. 3 Jayantibhai Punamchand Prajapati has given one bundle of 100 notes of 500 denomination which means 50,000 to Vinodbhai Khodabhai which was taken as a debt and the same was given to witness Vinodbhai despite knowing the fact that the said notes are counterfeited currency notes. Further, accused Nareshbhai Chaturbhai has purchased fertilizer from Kesarkhan Shambaji Jat (Malek) residing at Malvan by paying Rs. 16,509 as a price to Kasarkhan which consisted of one bundle of 100 notes of 100 denomination and further the same was given to witness Kesarkhan despite knowing the fact that same are counterfeited currency notes for the remaining due amount and that is how the said counterfeited currency notes are used. Further, accused Subhash Natvarlal Sopariwala has burnt counterfeited notes of currency notes of 500 wherein at his house situated behind Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, Surat namely "Shantivan" under the fear of getting caught hold as well as accused Babubhai @ Arvindbhai Nathubhai - Adivasi Patel has also burnt two bundles of counterfeited currency notes of 500 denomination at house situated near Kalka Mata Temple which was also burnt under the fear of getting caught hold and further accused Bharat Pumanchand was also keeping counterfeited currency notes in his house situated in Dhruv Tarak Society, Surat as well as accused No. 7 Bharat Punamchand along with his brother Jayantilal Punamchand has used the counterfeited currency notes despite knowing the fact that the same are counterfeited currency notes and that is how same are used. Further, accused Saukat Habib @ Habibia Faruki residing at Mumbai along with other accused persons as well as accused No. 6 Noormohmed @ Bhaiya Yakub Saiyed as well as absconded accused Iqbal Habib Saiyed as well as not arrested accused Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar as well as Anis Ibrahim Kaskar have hatched criminal conspiracy by wrongly importing currency notes of 100 denomination as well as 500 denomination from foreign country in India and said counterfeited currency notes were put into circulation as real currency notes despite knowing fact that the same are counterfeited currency notes and accused Shaukat Habib as well as Ibrahim Habib and Noormohmed @ Bhaiya Yakub Saiyed have conspired and accused No. 1 Ravubha supplied counterfeited currency notes in the huge quantity and that is how the aforesaid accused persons despite knowing the fact that the said currency notes are counterfeited were circulated as a real currency notes and by such act the economy of the India has been severely damaged and further it was conspired to destroy the economy arrangement of India and that is how offence punishable under sections 498(a), (b), (c), 120B as well as 201 of the Indian Penal code has been committed within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, it is directed that criminal trial may be conducted for the aforesaid offence upon the aforesaid accused persons." 6.02. As per the case of the prosecution one Mulrajsinh Parmar P.W. No. 8 deposited 100 notes of Rs. 100 i.e. Rs. 10,000 in the loan account of this father which was in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch. As per the case of the prosecution, having suspicion about the genuineness of the aforesaid currency notes, the same were sent to Reserve Bank of India and Forensic Science Laboratory and it was found that the said currency notes were counterfeit. The prosecution tried to establish that the said Mulrajsinh Parmar got the said currency notes from one Mahesh Solanki, who received the said notes from one Vihabhai Rabari, who received the said notes from original accused No. 1 - Ravubha Anadubha Parmar. The prosecution tried to establish that the said Mulrajsinh Parmar got the said currency notes from one Mahesh Solanki, who received the said notes from one Vihabhai Rabari, who received the said notes from original accused No. 1 - Ravubha Anadubha Parmar. However, it is required to be noted that the prosecution, as such, has failed to establish that Muljibhai Parmar deposited the counterfeit currency in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch and that said Muljibhai Parmar got the said notes from one Mahesh Solanki, who received the said notes from one Vihabhai Rabari, who received the said notes from original accused No. 1 - Ravubha Anadubha Parmar. It is required to be noted that the prosecution, as such, has failed to establish the primary thing that Mulrajsinh Parmar P.W. No. 8 deposited 100 notes of Rs. 100 i.e. Rs. 10,000 in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch. P.W. No. 13 - Vijaykumar Dave, Accountant of the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch has not stated in his deposition that Mulrajsinh Parmar - P.W. No. 8 deposited 100 notes of Rs. 100 in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch, which were found counterfeit. 6.03. Similarly, P.W. No. 14, Amrutbhai Morabhai Parmar, Head Cashier of State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch has also not stated in his deposition that Mulrajsinh Parmar deposited 100 notes of Rs. 100 in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch, which were found counterfeit. 6.04. P.W. No. 15 Umashankar Tiwari, Cashier of State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch has specifically stated that he does not know the name of a person who deposited 100 notes of Rs. 100 in the Bank, which were found counterfeit. Even no identification parade of Mulrajsinh has been conducted. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove by leading cogent evidence, that Mulrajsinh Parmar - P.W. No. 8 in fact deposited 100 notes of Rs. 100 in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch, which were found counterfeit. 6.05. As stated hereinabove, as per the case of the prosecution, Mulrajsinh got the aforesaid counterfeit notes from one Mahesh Solanki, who received the said notes from one Vihabhai Rabari, who received the said notes from original accused No. 1 - Ravubha Anadubha Parmar. 100 in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Muli Branch, which were found counterfeit. 6.05. As stated hereinabove, as per the case of the prosecution, Mulrajsinh got the aforesaid counterfeit notes from one Mahesh Solanki, who received the said notes from one Vihabhai Rabari, who received the said notes from original accused No. 1 - Ravubha Anadubha Parmar. However, none of the aforesaid persons namely Mahesh Solanki - P.W. No. 9 have Vihabhai Rabari - P.W. No. 11 have supported the case of the prosecution. Even Narayanbhai Govindbhai - Sarpanch, in whose presence Ravubha - original accused No. 1 gave counterfeit notes to Vihabhai has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove circulation of fake currency notes which ultimately alleged to have been deposited by Mulrajsinh Parmar in the Bank. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the original accused No. 1. 6.06. Now, so far as the other accused are concerned, as admitted by the investigating officer, there is no recovery of any counterfeit notes from any of the accused. Even there were allegations that the original accused No. 4 - Subhash and original accused No. 5 Balu alias Arvindbhai burnt counterfeit notes. Even there is no panchnama/evidence to prove the same. Even the investigating officer has also stated in his deposition that no such panchnama of burnt notes of counterfeit notes has been prepared and no counterfeit notes were recovered from any of the accused. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the aforesaid accused. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the aforesaid accused. 6.07. It is also required to be noted that even there is no recovery from the original accused No. 8. It has not been proved by the prosecution that the original accused No. 7 along with his brother Jayantibhai Punamchand - original accused No. 3 used any counterfeit currency note. Even as admitted by the investigating officer, there is no recovery of any counterfeit note. 6.08. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the evidence on record, when the learned trial court, by giving cogent reasons has acquitted the original accused, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 6.08. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the evidence on record, when the learned trial court, by giving cogent reasons has acquitted the original accused, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the learned trial court are on appreciation of evidence, which cannot be said to be either perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record and hence no interference of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction is warranted. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these appeals fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No. 2, Surendranagar in Sessions Case Nos. 100/2000 and 29/2001 dated 17/10/2006 is hereby confirmed. However, it is clarified that the aforesaid findings and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court shall be applicable to the original accused Nos. 1 to 8 only and the same shall not affect the trial against the original absconding accused Iqbal Habibbhai Saiyed, who is even as on today reported to be absconding.