JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. 1. These two appeals are filed by the State and the accused against the judgment dated 18.12.2012 passed in S.C. No. 135/2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Ramanagara. 2. The Criminal Appeal No. 393/2013 is filed by the State and Criminal Appeal No. 533/2017 is filed by the accused persons. The State has filed appeal for enhancement of sentence and the accused persons have filed appeal challenging the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. The Police have filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C of Indian Penal Code. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 31.01.2010, the Police have received the credible information at about 7.50 p.m. that these accused persons are possessing fake notes and also circulating the same. Hence, the Police Constables, who have been examined as PWs. 11 and 15 have apprehended these two accused persons and produced them before PW-1. PW-1 after securing panch witnesses, subjected both of them for personal search and found 20 fake notes of Rs. 1,000/- denomination from Accused No. 1 and 15 fake notes of the same denomination from Accused No. 2 and they were also having other genuine notes. In all, the accused were having fake notes and original genuine notes amounting to Rs. 43,700/-. Mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P.1 and also registered a suo-motu case against these two accused persons in terms of Ex.P.2 and thereafter, PW-1 entrusted the case to PW-17. PW-17 thereafter has conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet. 4. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that these two accused persons were indulged in circulating the fake notes and also they were possessing 35 fake notes and other genuine notes and also recoveries are made at the instance of these accused persons i.e. household articles and also challan for having deposited the amount in favour of other accused persons. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to 17 and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to 19 and also relied upon M.Os.1 to 21. 5. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to 17 and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to 19 and also relied upon M.Os.1 to 21. 5. The Court below after recording the evidence, recorded 313 statement of accused persons and thereafter, heard the arguments of learned counsels for both side and convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and also extended the benefit of set off to the accused persons under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the period undergone in custody during trial. 6. Being aggrieved by the imposition of sentence of one year, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2013. In the appeal, it is contended that the Court below has committed an error in not awarding the appropriate sentence and the trial Judge has failed to see that there are no mitigating circumstances to take a lenient view in the matter of imposition of sentence. It is further contended that the accused persons knowing fully well that the notes are fake currency notes, had indulged in anti-social activities of circulating the said fake currency notes. The offence committed by the accused is very serious and it affects the economy of the country. Under these circumstances, the trial Judge ought to have imposed grave sentence. Hence, the sentence imposed requires to be enhanced taking into account the gravity of offence. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused in Criminal Appeal No. 533 of 2017 contended that the learned trial judge has committed an error in convicting the accused persons, though prosecution has not established the chain of circumstances. The trial Court has not considered the omissions and contradictions. The learned counsel also contended that the currency notes were seized and mahazar was drawn in the presence of three witnesses viz. PWs. 5, 13 and 16. PWs. 13 and 16 have turned hostile. Though PW-5 at the first instance has stated that he has not seen the accused persons, thereafter he has supported the case of prosecution. The learned trial Judge ought not to have relied upon the evidence of PW-5. PWs. 5, 13 and 16. PWs. 13 and 16 have turned hostile. Though PW-5 at the first instance has stated that he has not seen the accused persons, thereafter he has supported the case of prosecution. The learned trial Judge ought not to have relied upon the evidence of PW-5. Further the learned counsel also contends that in the cross-examination of PW-5, answer has been elicited in favour of the accused and the same has not been considered by the trial Judge in respect of seizing of articles. Further he would also contend that no mahazar was drawn at the spot and mahazar was drawn in the Police Station and the said mahazar witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Taking into account the discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is a fit case to acquit the accused persons and hence, the conviction has to be set-aside. 8. The learned counsel appearing for appellant-State in his arguments would contend that all the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution, except PWs. 11 and 15. The learned trial judge though has appreciated the evidence, while imposing the sentence has taken a lenient view and has failed to take note of the fact that the offence committed by the accused is grave which affects the financial stability of the country and hence, the sentence has to be enhanced. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the accused persons in his argument vehemently contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the discrepancies found in the prosecution witnesses have not been properly discussed by the Court below and the Court below has erroneously convicted the accused persons. The learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment of High Court of Mysore in the case of Abbas Abdulkarim vs. State of Mysore, 1962 MYSLJ 656 and would contend that mahazar was drawn in the Police Station and not at the spot where the accused persons were apprehended. This infirmity seriously affects the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maheshbhai Jivanbhai @ Zinabhai Jamod vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 7 Laws (SC) 116 wherein it is observed at para No. 4 that appellants did not challenge their conviction and underwent the sentence awarded by the trial Court. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maheshbhai Jivanbhai @ Zinabhai Jamod vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 7 Laws (SC) 116 wherein it is observed at para No. 4 that appellants did not challenge their conviction and underwent the sentence awarded by the trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Apex Court held that ends of justice would be met if the enhancement of sentence awarded by the High Court is set-aside and sentence awarded by the trial Court is restored. 10. These appeals arise on account of conviction made under Sections 489-B and 489-C of Indian Penal Code and hence, the learned counsel contends that there are no material against the accused persons to believe that these accused persons were possessing and circulating the said fake notes. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence has to be set-aside. 11. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-State and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused persons. Having taken note of the contentions of both counsel in their respective appeal and also considering the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, this Court has to re-appreciate the same. Hence, we have framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the Court below has committed an error in not awarding the proportionate sentence in view of gravity of the offences? 2. Whether the Court below has committed an error in accepting the evidence of the prosecution to convict the appellants/accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C of Indian Penal Code? Point No. 2: 12. The brief factual matrix of the case is that on 31.01.2010, these two accused persons were indulged in circulating the fake notes and on credible information, both of them have been apprehended by PWs. 11 and 15 and produced before PW-1. Thereafter, both of them were subjected to search and seized the fake notes which were in their possession and mahazar was drawn in the Police Station. On the voluntary statement of the accused, they led them to the respective shops wherein they have purchased the articles with the fake notes and also the accused persons led the Investigating authority to Baburayanakoppalu, Srirangapatna Taluk. In the house, the police also recovered the things which they have purchased. On the voluntary statement of the accused, they led them to the respective shops wherein they have purchased the articles with the fake notes and also the accused persons led the Investigating authority to Baburayanakoppalu, Srirangapatna Taluk. In the house, the police also recovered the things which they have purchased. FSL report was obtained to confirm whether the seized notes are genuine or fake and after getting the report and completion of the investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the above offences. 13. Now, let us appreciate the evidence available on record. PW-1 is the person who has drawn the mahazar in the police station on production of accused Nos. 1 and 2 by PW-11 and 15, in terms of Ex.P.1 and sent the report to JMFC Court in terms of Ex.P.2. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 11, 15, 13 and 16 regarding seizure of fake notes. Though the prosecution examined mahazar witnesses i.e. PWs. 1, 11, 13, 15 and 16, out of them PWs. 13 and 16 have turned hostile. PW-5 an independent witness to the seizure of fake notes says that he was called to Police Station two years ago where he has seen the accused and he went to Police Station at 8.00 p.m. He himself and other panch witnesses Panduranga and Raghunatha Reddy were also called to police station. He says the police told that these accused persons were circulating fake notes and obtained the signatures. Further, he says that he found Rs. 1,000/- notes, Rs. 500/- notes, Rs. 100/- notes and Rs. 10/- notes and those notes were in the custody of the accused persons. The police also while drawing mahazar, found two mobiles and mahazar was drawn between 8.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. He also attested the signature on Ex.P.1. In the cross-examination of this witness, he was unable to say that accused persons before the Court were the same persons who were in the police station as they were not having beard at that time, but they were having beard at the time of evidence. It is suggested that he himself, Panduranga and Raghunatha Reddy, have not visited the police station and the said suggestion was denied. Further, suggestion was made that in their presence, MOs were not seized and the said suggestion is also denied. It is suggested that he himself, Panduranga and Raghunatha Reddy, have not visited the police station and the said suggestion was denied. Further, suggestion was made that in their presence, MOs were not seized and the said suggestion is also denied. He also denied the suggestion that he cannot identify the mobiles. I have already pointed out that PWs. 13 and 16 have not supported the prosecution case and they say that they were not taken to police station. Here, it has to be noted that PW-5 categorically says that other two witnesses were also called to the police station and he specifically mentioned the name of PWs. 13 and 16 and hence, it is clear that PWs. 13 and 16 are deposing falsely before the Court that they were not called to police station. This Court has to examine the evidence of PWs. 11 and 15. Both of them in their evidence say that on credible information, these two accused persons were apprehended near Bazar Circle and thereafter, both accused persons were brought to the police station. PW-15 has given the report to PW-1 in terms of Ex.P.10 and in Ex.P.10, which is reported to PW-1 regarding apprehension of these accused persons on credible information. The evidence of PW-1 is also clear that PWs. 11 and 15 apprehended the accused persons and produced before him and hence, he called the panch witnesses and drew the mahazar in their presence and accused No. 1 has produced the fake notes i.e. total 20 notes and accused No. 2 produced 15 fake notes and other notes were also seized to the tune of Rs. 43,700/-. At the first instance, he got it confirmed that those notes were fake notes and mahazar was drawn from 8 to 10 p.m. 14. Having taken note of the evidence of these witnesses, though the panch witnesses PWs. 13 and 16 have turned hostile, the evidence of PW-5 is specific that he went along with PWs. 13 and 16 to the Police Station and in their presence, mahazar was drawn and it is clear that PWs. 13 and 16 are not supporting the case. PW-5 identifies and says that they were the persons who were in the police station while drawing the mahazar. PW-5 also identifies his signature available on Ex.P.1. 13 and 16 to the Police Station and in their presence, mahazar was drawn and it is clear that PWs. 13 and 16 are not supporting the case. PW-5 identifies and says that they were the persons who were in the police station while drawing the mahazar. PW-5 also identifies his signature available on Ex.P.1. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused is that panchanama was not drawn at the spot and the same was drawn in the police station and the same cannot be accepted. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Mysore cited supra. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment and also the material on record regarding seizure and fake notes are concerned, it has to be noted that the evidence of PWs. 11 and 15 is specific, that only on credible information, they apprehended the accused Nos. 1 and 2. They did not make any search at the spot and brought them to police station. PW-15 gave a report in terms of Ex.P.10. Thereafter, after securing panch witnesses, the accused persons were subjected to search and notes were seized in the Police Station and mahazar was drawn. Hence, it is clear that the prosecution has proved the very seizure of the fake notes in the station and not subjected them to search at the spot and the very contention of the learned counsel for the accused that mahazar was drawn in the police station and not at the spot cannot be accepted. PWs. 11 and 15 only apprehended the accused persons and produced both of them before PW-1. PW-1 has drawn mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses. The evidence of PW-5 is specific that notes are seized in his presence in the station. He specifically says that he has seen the fake notes which were in the custody of the accused. He also identifies the same before the Court and hence, the prosecution has proved the very seizure of the fake notes. 15. Now, coming to the second aspect with regard to the circulation of notes in the circle of Ramanagara and the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs. 2, 3 and 4 and also PW-17 who is the Investigating Officer and conducted further investigation. PW-2 says that he has seen the accused persons two years ago. 15. Now, coming to the second aspect with regard to the circulation of notes in the circle of Ramanagara and the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs. 2, 3 and 4 and also PW-17 who is the Investigating Officer and conducted further investigation. PW-2 says that he has seen the accused persons two years ago. These accused persons were brought to the shop. Police told that accused persons have purchased underwear and baniyan in the shop. They have given Rs. 1,000/- notes, which were fake notes. He says that accused persons asked in Hindi language whether they are having Roopa underwear and he sent them inside the shop. After 3-4 days, the police brought these two accused persons. He categorically identifies the accused persons before the Court saying that these two accused persons were brought to his shop. In the cross-examination, he admits that fake notes were not seized in his shop. He admits that underwear and baniyan will be available in the other shops also. He also admits that he did not see the accused persons prior to bringing them to the shop. The other witness - PW-3 says that, he is running Ambika Store. He has seen the accused persons, when they were brought to police station 2½ years ago. Thereafter, he says he has said to the police that these accused persons have purchased powder and snow and hence, he gave reply that they might have visited his shop and purchased articles worth Rs. 120/-. When they gave Rs. 1,000/- note, he was not having any change and he enquired with the neighbour and he did not get the change. In the meanwhile, Bus Conductor came to his shop and he collected the change from him and these accused persons asked the things in Hindi language. The police brought those accused persons after 4 days. In the cross-examination of PW-2, it is elicited that he does not know whether Rs. 1000/- note was a fake note or genuine note? A suggestion was made that police did not bring accused persons to his shop and he denied the same. 16. The other witness PW-4 is also the witness, who is running the grocery shop in Ramanagar old Police Station and he did not support the case of the prosecution. 17. In order to prove the circulation, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs. 16. The other witness PW-4 is also the witness, who is running the grocery shop in Ramanagar old Police Station and he did not support the case of the prosecution. 17. In order to prove the circulation, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 and also PW-17 Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, in his evidence says that after recording voluntary statement of accused Nos. 1 and 2, both of them led the Investigating Officer and others to the said shops and told that they have purchased articles from the said shops. It is pertinent to note that though it is the case of the prosecution that these accused persons were indulging in circulating the fake notes by purchasing several articles, the alleged fake notes given to those shops were not seized. 18. The counsel appearing for the appellants/accused also submits that there was no seizure of fake notes which were given to those shops but, the clinching evidence before the Court is that the accused persons, apart from leading the Investigating Officer and others to those shops, they also led them to the beetle leaves shop where the accused persons had kept their bag and the same was seized wherein bank challans and other articles were also recovered at the instance of the accused persons. 19. PW-6, in his evidence says that he was called to Police Station. The Police took the accused persons and other persons along with him in a jeep and accused led all of the them near Shobha Hotel and showed the bag which was kept beneath the beetle leaves shop. The same was recovered at the instance of accused persons. In the bag they were having clothes, soap, paste, brush and bank challans and he also identifies the bank challan as M.O.15. In the cross-examination, he admits that he along with Suresh and Ravi have signed mahazar. It is suggested that he and his friends did not accompany the Police and did not go to the said place and the same was denied. PW-17 also in his evidence reiterates the evidence of PW-6 regarding recovery. 20. It is pertinent to note that though the notes which were given in the shops were not recovered, the evidence of PWs. 6 and 17 corroborates with each other and bank challans were also the seized. PW-17 also in his evidence reiterates the evidence of PW-6 regarding recovery. 20. It is pertinent to note that though the notes which were given in the shops were not recovered, the evidence of PWs. 6 and 17 corroborates with each other and bank challans were also the seized. Account extracts of Sajjad Shaik, Farmaan Ali and Saifuddin are marked as Exs-P17, P18 and P19. Hence, it is clear that after circulating the fake notes, the accused persons used to deposit the amounts in favour of the above persons and the same is evident in terms of Exs-P17 to P19. Hence, it is clear that accused persons were indulging in circulating the fake notes and depositing the genuine notes in the bank in favour of those three persons in terms of Exs-P17, P18 and P19. The accused persons did not dispute the fact that challans were seized at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and no explanation was given by the accused as to why they were depositing the amount in favour of those three persons. 21. It is also the case of the prosecution that Sajjad Shaik, Farmaan Ali and Saifuddin were benefiting from these accused persons, who were circulating the fake notes and depositing the amount in their accounts. Hence, it is clear that accused persons were indulging in circulating fake notes. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/ accused is that, though seizure of notes which were circulated were not made, it is to be noted that after 5 to 6 days of transaction in the shop, the accused persons were taken to the said shop wherein the said witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and identified the accused persons. 22. The prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of PW-9, who conducted the examination whether the seized notes are fake notes or genuine notes and he gave a report in terms of Ex-P8. In his evidence, he says that after receiving seized cover, fake notes and other notes were examined and found only 35 notes were fake and other notes are genuine notes. In the cross-examination of PW-9, nothing is elicited to disbelieve his version and his report is very clear that Rs. 1000 notes are fake notes and other notes are genuine notes. Hence, it is clear that out of the seized notes, 35 notes of Rs. In the cross-examination of PW-9, nothing is elicited to disbelieve his version and his report is very clear that Rs. 1000 notes are fake notes and other notes are genuine notes. Hence, it is clear that out of the seized notes, 35 notes of Rs. 1,000/- denomination were fake notes which were in the custody of accused Nos. 1 and 2. 23. The other circumstance, which the prosecution has placed reliance is that these accused persons were having the house at Baburayana Koppalu and PW-7 Owner identifies the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and she categorically states that she had let-out the premises to accused persons, at the instance of her cousin and they were staying for a period of 8 days and thereafter, the Police brought them to the said house and mahazar was drawn and the articles which were found in the said house were seized. 24. PW-14 is the Police Constable, who accompanied the Investigating Officer and accused persons and he categorically says that accused persons took them near their house where they seized the articles i.e. M.Os.13, 14, and 16 to 18. In the cross-examination of PW-14, the only discrepancy elicited is in terms of Ex-P7. The accused No. 2-Shabeer Ali only took all of them near the house but, there is a mistake in the mahazar to the effect that the accused persons took them near the house. In the cross-examination of PW-7, a suggestion was made that accused persons did not take the premises for rent and no articles were seized at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2 in their presence and the said suggestion is denied. 25. PW-8 is an Auto Driver of Ramanagar, who also accompanied the accused persons to Baburayana Koppalu and he also reiterates the same that the accused persons led and produced the articles. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that he was seeing the accused persons in the Court for the first time and the said suggestion was denied. Further suggestion was made that no such articles were seized in their presence and the same was also denied. It is suggested that he being an auto driver having connection with the Police and hence, he is giving false evidence was also denied. 26. Having considered the evidence and material witnesses of the prosecution and also the documentary evidence, it is clear that PWs. It is suggested that he being an auto driver having connection with the Police and hence, he is giving false evidence was also denied. 26. Having considered the evidence and material witnesses of the prosecution and also the documentary evidence, it is clear that PWs. 11 and 15 have apprehended the accused persons and thereafter, accused persons were produced before PW-1. PW-1 has drawn the mahazar in the presence of PWs. 5, 13 and 16. No doubt PWs. 13 and 16 have turned hostile, but it is clear that PW-5 in his evidence says that two persons viz. PWs. 13 and 16 were also present at the time of drawing the mahazar. PW-1 in his evidence also says that all these panch witnesses were present and on enquiry, accused No. 1 has produced 20 fake notes and accused No. 2 has produced 15 fake notes, in all amounting to Rs. 35,000/-. The other notes are also recovered which are genuine and the total amount is Rs. 43,700/-. The main contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that, mahazar was not drawn at the spot and the same was drawn in the Police Station, for which he has relied upon the judgments which have been cited supra. 27. In the case on hand, it is to be noted that when PWs. 11 and 15 were on duty, on credible information, they have apprehended accused Nos. 1 and 2 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not subjected to search at the spot and they were brought before PW-1. PW-1 drew the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. Notes are seized in the Police Station and not at the spot. Hence, the citation quoted by the learned counsel for the accused will not come to the aid of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs. 1, 11 and 15 coupled with the evidence of PW-5, an independent witness, it is clear that fake notes were recovered at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and PW-9, who has been examined before the Court confirms that 35 notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination are fake notes. Hence, it is clear that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were possessing fake notes. 28. The other circumstance is PWs. 2 and 3, who have supported the case of the prosecution regarding accused Nos. 1 and 2 and PW-9, who has been examined before the Court confirms that 35 notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination are fake notes. Hence, it is clear that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were possessing fake notes. 28. The other circumstance is PWs. 2 and 3, who have supported the case of the prosecution regarding accused Nos. 1 and 2 have led those witnesses and Investigating Officers to the shops where they had purchased the articles. The prosecution though has relied on the evidence of PW-4, he has turned hostile. The evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 is clear that these accused persons were taken to their respective shops where they have purchased the articles. PW-3 categorically says that accused persons were having beard at the time when they were brought to the shop. But, they were not having any beard at the time of identification in the Police Station. PW-7, the owner of the premises categorically says that she has let out the premises to these accused persons and they were staying in the house since one week and PW-14 Police Constable, who accompanied the Investigating Officer and the accused persons has categorically deposed that they went to Baburayana Koppalu and seized the articles in the said house. PW-8 also confirms that in his presence, the accused persons led Investigating Officer and others to Baburayana Koppalu and the owner PW-7 has identified those persons. The other witness PW-6, in his evidence says that the accused persons led the Investigating Officer and others near the beetle leaves shop and seized the bag which contained the bank challans for having deposited money in the account of accused Nos. 3 to 5 and PW-17, Investigating Officer also spoke with regard to the investigation which he has conducted and the accused persons have led the panchas and Investigating Officer to the particular spot. 29. Having considered all these materials available on record, the prosecution has proved that the accused persons were indulged in circulating the fake notes and depositing the amount into the account of accused Nos. 3 to 5. To substantiate the same, the prosecution has relied on the documents Exs-P17 to P19 i.e. the bank accounts which are standing in the name of Sajjad Shaik, Farmaan Ali and Saifuddin. 3 to 5. To substantiate the same, the prosecution has relied on the documents Exs-P17 to P19 i.e. the bank accounts which are standing in the name of Sajjad Shaik, Farmaan Ali and Saifuddin. Account extracts are collected from the bank and the accused have not given any explanation with regard to the challans, depositing the amount into their accounts and where they got the money to deposit the amount into their accounts. Therefore, this Court can draw an inference that they deposited the amount after circulation of the fake notes. Hence it is crystal clear that accused persons were indulged in circulating the fake notes. PW-6 also categorically states that the bag was seized and in the bag, bank challans for having deposited the amount were found and the same is a clinching material to come to the conclusion that the accused persons have committed an offence under Section 489-B and 489-C of Indian Penal Code. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court to come to the other conclusion. Since the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent, no doubt there are minor discrepancies which are not fatal to the case of the prosecution and no dispute with regard to the identification of accused persons and recovery of articles, the evidence of prosecution inspires confidence of the Court to bring home the guilt of accused persons within the purview of Section 489-B and 489-C of Indian Penal Code. We do not find any reason to reverse the findings of the trial Court. Hence, the order of conviction requires to be confirmed. 30. The State has filed appeal to enhance the sentence. Since the learned trial Judge has awarded sentence of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for both the offences, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that for an offence under Section 489-B of Indian Penal Code, accused is to be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also liable for fine and for an offence punishable under Section 489-C of Indian Penal Code, imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years or with fine or with both. The very fine imposed by the learned trial Judge is too meager, when the accused persons have indulged in circulating the fake notes which affects the very economy of the Country and the same has to be enhanced. 31. Having considered the material on record and also the seizure of fake notes that too, fake notes of Rs. 1,000/- denomination amounting to Rs. 35,000/- are recovered at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2 which has been confirmed through the evidence of PW-9 this Court is of the considered view that when the punishment is provided up to ten years for the offence punishable under Section 489-B of Indian Penal Code and seven years for the offence punishable under Section 489-C of Indian Penal Code, the learned trial Judge ought not to have imposed sentence of one year and nominal fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The very act of the accused persons amounts to disturbing the economy of the country. Hence, the sentence of imprisonment as well as the fine amount has to be enhanced. 32. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2013 filed by the State is allowed in part and Criminal appeal No. 533 of 2019 filed by the accused is dismissed. (i) The conviction order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the learned trial Judge in SC No. 135/2010 against accused Nos. 1 and 2 is confirmed. The sentences are modified. (ii) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively for an offence punishable under Section 489-B of Indian Penal Code. In default, accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and five months respectively. (iii) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two and half years for an offence punishable under Section 489-C of Indian Penal Code. (iv) Both the sentences shall run concurrently. (v) The trial Court is directed to secure the above accused persons and subject them to serve sentence. (vi) Needless to state that if any of the accused persons were in custody during the course of trial, they are entitled for the benefit of set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.