JUDGMENT : SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J. 1. Challenging the judgment dated 09.08.2012 in S.C. No. 24/2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, these two appeals have been filed. Criminal Appeal No. 3677/2012 is filed by accused no. 2 and Criminal Appeal No. 3629/2012 is filed by accused nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. 2. The trial court has held accused nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 guilty of offences punishable under sections 489B, 489C and 420 of IPC. Accused no. 2 is held guilty of offences punishable under sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 489E and 420 of IPC. The police actually filed charge-sheet against six accused persons; accused no. 6 Smt. Lata has been acquitted of all the offences and that accused nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 have also been acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 489A, 489D and 489E of IPC. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-1 B.S. Malgatti, Police Inspector, DCIB, Gulbarga received credible information on 22.03.2009 that some persons were involved in circulation of fake currency notes and that they were about to come near Tintani Shri Mouneshwar Temple to distribute the notes for circulation. Thereafter PW-1 secured independent panchas and taking the help of other police personnel, came near the said temple and seized the fake currency notes from the possession of the accused who are in appeal. He held further investigation and filed the charge-sheet. 4. The trial court after holding trial came to conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Though all the panch witnesses turned hostile, the trial court placed reliance on the evidence given by the police witnesses and the recovery of the incriminating articles at the instance of some of the accused and concluded that the case against the appellants-accused had stood established. 5. Assailing the findings of the trial court, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused no. 2 in Criminal Appeal 3677/2012 argues that the trial court erroneously came to a conclusion that the prosecution case would stand proved. His argument is that none of the independent panch witnesses supports the prosecution case. Based on evidence given by police witnesses the trial court should not have held that the prosecution case would stand proved. 2 in Criminal Appeal 3677/2012 argues that the trial court erroneously came to a conclusion that the prosecution case would stand proved. His argument is that none of the independent panch witnesses supports the prosecution case. Based on evidence given by police witnesses the trial court should not have held that the prosecution case would stand proved. His argument is that PW-1 was the complainant, he was the police officer who conducted raid and drew up panchanama as per Ex.P-2 at the spot. He conducted further investigation also. Being the complainant he should not have conducted investigation and thereby the prosecution case gets vitiated. 6. Secondly, he argues that PW-1 violated mandatory provision found in section 100 of Cr.P.C. When he conducted raid, he should have secured two responsible persons from the locality for acting as panchas, instead he took with him panchas from another place. They might have turned hostile but there was lapse on the part of PW-1 in not securing the local panchas. 7. Thirdly, he argues that the mandatory provisions of sections 165 and 166 of Cr.P.C. were not followed by PW-1. In this regard he argues that when PW-1 went to Manvi for recovering some of the incriminating articles, PW-1 did not inform the same to the local police. He also did not apply to the Magistrate for issuance of search warrant nor he recorded reasons. Whenever a police officer goes to a place beyond his jurisdiction for conducting investigation, he must inform to the SHO of the place where the investigation is to be conducted. If this procedure is not followed, investigation can be said to be bad and thereby accused cannot be convicted. 8. Learned counsel also argues that if the entire evidence is perused, it can be very well stated that the prosecution case is full of improbabilities. In Ex.P-2, it is written that the accused were loudly speaking that they wanted to circulate the fake currency notes and this is an improbability that could be made out in the prosecution case as no accused will discuss loudly drawing the attention of others. Lastly he argued that imposition of maximum sentence in the facts and circumstances was unwarranted and in case this court comes to conclusion that impugned judgment needs to be confirmed, atleast sentence may be reduced. 9. Lastly he argued that imposition of maximum sentence in the facts and circumstances was unwarranted and in case this court comes to conclusion that impugned judgment needs to be confirmed, atleast sentence may be reduced. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal 3629/2012 argues that absolutely there is no case for holding the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under section 489B of IPC. PW-1 speaks that the appellants wanted to circulate fake currency notes. At best, the offence that could have been invoked against them was one punishable according to section 489C of IPC. These accused are in custody for quite long time. Sentence may be reduced to minimum and they be released from the jail. 10. The Additional State Public Prosecutor, countering the arguments of the counsel for the appellants in both the appeals argues that in a case like this, the evidence of police witnesses may be relied upon. If their evidence is found trustworthy, there is nothing wrong in holding the accused guilty based on their evidence. It may be a fact that the panch witnesses have not supported, nevertheless, the testimonies of police witnesses very much establish the fact that PW-1 with the help of other police conducted raid and recovered fake currency notes by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P-2. Based on the confession statements of three accused, PW-1 was further able to recover incriminating materials. The defence has utterly failed to discredit this witness. 11. Referring to the argument of counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal 3677/2012, learned Additional SPP argued that if PW-1 himself conducted investigation, there was nothing wrong in it. It is not the case of the accused that PW-1 wanted to foist them in a false case. PW-1 had no personal interest. In raid cases major portion of investigation comes to an end soon after raid is conducted and if any part of investigation remains, it is only with regard to collection of some reports in which the participation of investigation officer cannot be expected. If it is the case of the appellants that they had been prejudiced because of investigation conducted by PW-1, that should have been brought on record. The cross-examination of PW-1 or other police witnesses does not disclose that their interest has been prejudiced in any way or there is a failure of justice. If it is the case of the appellants that they had been prejudiced because of investigation conducted by PW-1, that should have been brought on record. The cross-examination of PW-1 or other police witnesses does not disclose that their interest has been prejudiced in any way or there is a failure of justice. In view of this, the testimonies of police witnesses cannot be discarded and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. 12. If the entire evidence is now re-assessed, keeping in mind the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned Additional SPP, we notice that except PWs. 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 the other witnesses do not support. The witnesses who have not supported were all examined for establishing the mahazars or panchanamas drawn as per Ex.P-2 and Exs.P-7 to 14. There is no rule as such that the evidence of police witnesses must be discarded if independent witnesses do not support. Their evidence may be relied upon if their evidence is trustworthy. 13. With regard to two points urged by learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal 3677/2012, it has to be stated that if PW-1 himself conducted further investigation after conducting raid, nothing infirmity can be found in it. A complainant cannot be an investigating officer in cases where the investigating officer has personal interest. But in raid cases like the one here, as soon as recovery is made at the spot, major portion of the investigation comes to an end and if anything remains, the police officer who conducts the raid may complete it. But if the defence is able to establish the fact that such police officer possessed a kind of prejudice against the accused in order to falsely implicate them, then only the evidence of investigating officer has to be looked at with askance, otherwise not. Therefore, not in all cases it is possible to say that a police officer who conducts raid and gives a report to the SHO for registration of FIR cannot conduct investigation. With regard to securing witnesses from the place of raid or seizure, if the investigation officer does not secure local witness, it may be an irregularity. Even in regard to this, the defence must be able to show that there is failure of justice. 14. With regard to securing witnesses from the place of raid or seizure, if the investigation officer does not secure local witness, it may be an irregularity. Even in regard to this, the defence must be able to show that there is failure of justice. 14. In this case the evidence of PW-1 shows that it was he who received credible information that accused were involved in circulation of fake currency notes. He went to the place of incident along with panchas and other police staff and conducted raid. He was able to recover fake currency notes and also genuine currency notes. After seizing the fake currency notes at the spot, based on the confession statement given by accused no. 2 he was able to seize some more incriminating materials like security thread, 5 glass pieces of the size of currency notes, two bundles of paper pieces cut to the size of currency notes, bottle containing the chemical, bundle of cotton, 6 black colour pads, 1 rexene bag, blue colour security thread roll and another bundle containing paper pieces cut to the size of currency notes as per M.Os.15 to 23. It is true that the independent witnesses to the panchanama drawn in this regard have not supported. Further, his evidence discloses that accused nos.3 and 5 also gave confession statements and that their confession statements led to recovery of some more incriminating materials from the house of accused no. 4. Even to the panchanamas drawn in this regard, the independent witnesses have not supported. But the testimony of PW-1 finds full corroboration from the evidence given by PW-10 and PW-11. If we peruse the cross-examination of these witnesses, we do not find anything worth mentioning here to say that these witnesses have been discredited. Therefore the trial court has rightly believed the evidence of these witnesses and we too are of the same opinion. It is pertinent to mention here that all the panch witnesses who have turned hostile admit their signatures on the panchanamas but do not testify the contents of the panchanamas. 15. During investigation, the seized notes were examined by PW-6, the Bank Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Mysore. His clear evidence is that seized notes were not genuine and the defence has failed to discredit him. 15. During investigation, the seized notes were examined by PW-6, the Bank Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Mysore. His clear evidence is that seized notes were not genuine and the defence has failed to discredit him. PW-9 was a clerk at Canara Bank and his evidence is that after seizure of currency notes, he was asked to detect the fake notes and the genuine notes. He used an Ultra Violate Machine available in his bank and found that the notes seized were fake. Therefore it can be very well said that the evidence of PW-6 and PW-9 lends support to the case of the prosecution. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimonies of police witnesses as also PW-6 and PW-9. It was PW-13 who registered FIR as per Ex.P-3. PW-14 was the police inspector who held further investigation and filed charge-sheet. Therefore, the overall conclusion that we are able to draw is that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find good ground to take a different view from the one taken by the trial court. 16. We do not find any infirmity in holding accused no. 2 i.e. the appellant in Criminal Appeal 3677/2012 guilty for the offences punishable under sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 489E and 420 of IPC. With regard to the appellants in Criminal Appeal 3629/2012, it is to be held that only the offence punishable under section 489C of IPC gets proved as they were found in possession of fake currency notes. If a person is found having possession of fake currency notes, he can only be punished under section 489C of IPC, and he cannot be punished for the offence under section 489B of IPC. For this reason, the appellants in Criminal Appeal 3629/2012 are to be acquitted of the offence punishable under section 489B of IPC. 17. The trial court has imposed maximum punishment of life imprisonment to accused no. 2 in relation to offence punishable under sections 489A and 489D of IPC besides fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the said offences. In our opinion, there is no case for imposing life imprisonment in this case. Sentence can be reduced. These two sections very clearly state that the accused can be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment with either description for a term which may extend to 10 years. 10,000/- each for the said offences. In our opinion, there is no case for imposing life imprisonment in this case. Sentence can be reduced. These two sections very clearly state that the accused can be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment with either description for a term which may extend to 10 years. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that accused no. 2 can be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the offences punishable under sections 489A and 489D of IPC besides imprisonment for one year each in case he fails to pay the fine amount. To this extent the sentence imposed by the trial court is modified. 18. So far as appellants in Criminal Appeal 3629/2012 are concerned, they are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 489B of IPC. They are convicted only for the offence punishable under section 489C of IPC. The sentence imposed by the trial court on these appellants for section 489C of IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. Default sentence of 6 months is imposed in case they fail to pay the fine amount. 19. It is submitted that so far as appellant in Criminal Appeal 3677/2012 is concerned, he has already served sentence of 10 years 8 months. Therefore this period is set-off and he be set at liberty if his presence is not necessary in any other case. 20. In regard to the appellants in Criminal Appeal 3629/2012, the period they have already spent in jail be set-off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by us and if any of them has completed the imprisonment period, he may be set at liberty immediately if his presence is not necessary in connection with any other case. With these modifications in sentence, the appeals are partly allowed.