JUDGMENT : A.J. DESAI, J. 1. The challenge in both these appeals is the judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham-Kutch in the Sessions Case No. 57 of 2011, by which the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 61 0f 2018 namely Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya (original accused No. 1) has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further one year of rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 489(b) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) as well as to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further six months of rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 489(c) of the IPC, whereas the Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2017 has been preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the said decision, by which the respondents- accused namely, Bachasha Khedansha Kanu (original accused No. 2) and Raghu Lalchand Mukhiya (original accused No. 3) have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 489(b),(c) and 120B and 34 of the IPC. 2. Mr. Chirag B. Upadhyay, who has filed the appeal against conviction through High Court Legal Services Committee, states that the appellant does not want to challenge the conviction, however, the Court may consider to reduce the sentence since he has undergone more than 8 years and 9 months of sentence and is behind bar since 02.06.2011. 3. In the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against acquittal, the respondents-accused, though served, have chosen not appear before the Court, however, we requested learned advocate Mr. Chirag Upadhyay to assist the Court in the matter and accordingly, he has assisted the Court in the aforesaid appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution before the trial court was as under. Chirag Upadhyay to assist the Court in the matter and accordingly, he has assisted the Court in the aforesaid appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution before the trial court was as under. 4.1 That one L.D. Wagadiya, Police Inspector, Special Operations Group (S.O.G.) of Gandhidham, East Kutch lodged an FIR with “A” Division Police Station of Gandhidham-Kutch on 02.06.2011 against Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya, Bachasha Khedansha Kanu as well as Raghu Lalchand Mukhiya alleging that having prior permission that at the instance of Bachasha Khedansha Kanu, who is permanent resident of Bihar through whom one Jata Muni Mukhiya, resident of Mirzapur (Bihar) is indulging in the activities of circulating fake currency notes in India and has handed over bag of fake currency notes to one of the accused namely Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya, who is also resident of Bihar and the said Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiyais circulating such fake currency notes in the town of Gandhidham in a particular area. He alongwith his staff members and panchas waited at a chowk of Gandhidham for arrival of said Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya. 4.2 That the said Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya tried to purchase some vegetables and took out a 500 rupee note, he was raided and he was searched in the presence of panchas as well as police officer. From his pocket, 50 notes of Rs. 500 denomination were found, which were fake notes and the same were seized in the presence of panchas and accordingly, Panchnama was prepared. 77 notes of Rs. 100 denomination and 6 notes of Rs. 50 denomination were found from the pocket of the said Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya, which were original currency notes. On inquiring, he declared that said notes were supplied by Bachasha Khedansha Kanu, one of the accused as well as by one Jata Muni Mukhiya (who is neither made accused nor he is shown absconding accused by the Investigating Officer). Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya was arrested on the spot and subsequently, two other accused came to be arrested by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to one Hayatkhan Rehmatkhan Baloch, Police Inspector of “A” Division Police Station, Gandhidham and subsequently, the investigation was completed at the hands of one Hardevsinh Karansinh Vaghela, who was working as Police Inspector of the said Division and had submitted charge-sheet before the concerned court of Magistrate. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to one Hayatkhan Rehmatkhan Baloch, Police Inspector of “A” Division Police Station, Gandhidham and subsequently, the investigation was completed at the hands of one Hardevsinh Karansinh Vaghela, who was working as Police Inspector of the said Division and had submitted charge-sheet before the concerned court of Magistrate. 4.3 The concerned court of Magistrate, having no jurisdiction to try the case, committed the same to the Court of Sessions Judge, Gandhidham-Kutch. 4.4 The charge Exh.4 came to be framed against all the three accused, who denied the same and accordingly, the trial commenced. 4.5 The prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses and produced relevant documentary evidence in support of the case. 4.6 The trial court after having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Gujarat as well as different advocates for three different accused, passed the impugned judgment and order, which is under consideration in the present Appeals. 5. So far as the appeal filed by Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya is concerned (Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2018), as stated hereinabove by learned advocate Mr. Chirag B. Upadhyay that he does not challenge the conviction, however, requested the Court to reduce the sentence. 6. We have gone through the documents produced on record, which suggests that Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya was in circulation of fake currency notes, however, he is found in possession with 50 fake currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- i.e. he was in possession of Rs. 25,000/-. 6.1 We have also gone through the jail record which suggests that till today, he has undergone more than 8 years and 9 months of imprisonment including the temporary bail enjoyed by him as well as parole and furlough leave granted by the jail authorities. The jail record also suggests that whenever he was released on temporary bail, parole/furlough leave, he had surrendered in time. His jail conduct is also found to be satisfactory, as observed by the Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Rajkot Central Jail. The jail record also suggests that whenever he was released on temporary bail, parole/furlough leave, he had surrendered in time. His jail conduct is also found to be satisfactory, as observed by the Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Rajkot Central Jail. Considering the gravity of offence and considering the maximum punishment provided under Section 489(b) and Section 489(c) of the IPC, for which the appellant Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya is convicted by maximum punishment provided for 10 years and 5 years respectively, when the Court is satisfied with the fact that the conduct of the appellant is good and when he has undergone more than 80% of his sentence and when there is provision of imposing maximum sentence of 10 years, we are of the view that the request made on behalf of the appellant-accused Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya can be considered. Accordingly, we upheld the conviction imposed by the trial court. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2018 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2016 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham-Kutch, in the Sessions Case No. 57 of 2011, is modified and, the conviction of the appellant is reduced to 7 years. So far as the imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, the same is not altered, however, the sentence which has been imposed for non-payment of fine for one year for the offence punishable under Section 489(b) and six months for Section 489(c) of the IPC is concerned, the jail authorities shall calculate the entire period undergone and shall release the appellant-Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya, if not required in any other case. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P if any, to the trial court forthwith. 8. So far as the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2017) is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi has vehemently submitted that the trial court has committed error in acquitting the respondents-accused. Registry to return the R&P if any, to the trial court forthwith. 8. So far as the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2017) is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi has vehemently submitted that the trial court has committed error in acquitting the respondents-accused. He would submit that the accused persons were facing charges for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC and therefore, when the prosecution was successful in establishing that there was criminal conspiracy between the accused and abetment to the offence, having not found at the place and having not found fake currency notes in the possession from any of the accused itself would not entitle them to acquittal. He would submit that sufficient material was produced before the trial court to establish the criminal conspiracy between Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya, from whom the notes were found and the present respondents-accused, who are permanent residents of Bihar. All the three accused were residents of Bihar. By taking us through the depositions of police witnesses including the Investigating Officers, he would submit that the trial court has unnecessarily placed much reliance on the say of police officer when he has not recorded the statement of any person from Betiya Police Station of Bihar nor recorded statement of any person from State of Bihar where the respondents-accused were residing. He, therefore, would submit that the present appeal be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Chirag B. Upadhyay, who assisted the Court on behalf of the respondents-accused, would submit that the trial court had rightly observed and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any case against the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 120A and 34 read with Section 489(b) and (c) of the IPC, for which they were charged. By taking us through the deposition of PW-14 Exh.109 namely, Hardevsinh K. Vaghela who had completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, though he had accepted that Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya when arrested had disclosed name of one Jata Muni Mukhiya, no investigation is carried out against him. He would submit that neither he has been arrested nor shown as absconding accused in the charge-sheet. He would submit that neither he has been arrested nor shown as absconding accused in the charge-sheet. He would submit that this witness has also submitted that he was unable to produce any authentic material connecting Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya with the present respondents-accused. He, therefore, would submit that when no fake currency notes were found from the respondents-accused and when they are facing charges of criminal conspiracy and has failed to establish the common intention of all the accused, as provided under Section 34 of the IPC, the trial court has committed no error in acquitting both the respondents-accused. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 10. We have heard the learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi and learned advocate Mr. Chirag B. Upadhyay for the respondents-accused. We have gone through the documentary evidence produced on record and scrutinized the depositions of various witnesses, panch witnesses and police witnesses. The case qua the respondents-accused having been put forth by the police is the common intention to circulate fake currency notes and hatched the criminal conspiracy. It appears from the record that initially, investigation was carried out by one Hayatkhan Rehmatkhan Baloch, examined as PW-13 at Exh.106, whereas subsequently, investigation had been carried out by Hardevsinh Karansinh Vaghela, examined as PW-14 at Exh.109 who filed the charge-sheet. If the cross-examination of the said witness is perused and scrutinized, he has admitted that the name of one Jata Muni Mukhiya was referred to in the police investigation from whom Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya has received the fake currency notes, however, he has not carried out any investigation to find out the said Jata Muni Mukhiya or collected any material. It is true that apart from the said Jata Muni Mukhiya, name of Bachasha was disclosed, however, there is no authenticated material he was able to procure during the investigation or from the State of Bihar. He has categorically admitted that there is no documentary evidence or any type of document or material which connects the accused Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya, who has been convicted, with the accused Bachasha and therefore, the trial court has rightly held that there is no case made out against Bachasha. He has categorically admitted that there is no documentary evidence or any type of document or material which connects the accused Shivshankar Mahesh Mukhiya, who has been convicted, with the accused Bachasha and therefore, the trial court has rightly held that there is no case made out against Bachasha. 10.1 So far as the accused No. 3 namely Raghu Lalchand Mukhiya is concerned, it is an admitted position that some amount was deposited by the main accused in his account, however, the same deposited amount itself would not establish the connection between them that too with regard to circulation of fake currency notes. Any fake currency note is not deposited in the account of accused No. 3 and therefore, the trial court has committed no error in acquitting the respondent accused No. 3-Raghu Lalchand Mukhiya. Apart from the factual aspects, even otherwise, in the acquittal appeal the Court has to deal with such appeal with care and caution and when there are two views possible and when the trial court has recorded the findings, ordinarily, the same should not be interfered with, unless some perversity is found. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order by which the respondents-accused have been acquitted. 10.2 In case of Muralidhar alias Gidda and Another vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2014 SC 2200 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down principles to be kept in mind while dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal. The relevant paragraph 12 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: “12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu, Madan Mohan Singh, Atley, Aher Raja Khima, Balbir Singh, M.G. Agarwal, Noor Khan, Khedu Mohton, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade, Lekha Yadav, Khem Karan, Bishan Singh, Umedbhai Jadavbhai, K. Gopal Reddy, Tota Singh, Ram Kumar, Madan Lal, Sambasivan, Bhagwan Singh, Harijana Thirupala, C. Antony, K. Gopalakrishna, Sanjay Thakran and Chandrappa. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court. (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal. (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified. (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.” 10.3 Even in the case of Premsingh vs. State of Hrayana, (2013) 14 SCC 88 , the Larger Bench of the Apex Court has reiterated five parameters of dealing with the acquittal appeal. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under: “6. Having regard to the fact that in the instant case the High Court had thought it proper to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court it will be appropriate to notice, though very briefly, the virtually settled position in law with regard to the power of the Appellate Court to reverse an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court. 7. 7. In a recent decision in Murugesan vs. State through Inspector of Police, this Court had the occasion to consider the broad principles of law governing the power of the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The summary of the relevant principles of law set out in Para-21 of the judgment may be extracted herein-under: “21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo Swarup is to be found in Para-42 of the Report in Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka. The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed below: (SCC P. 432) “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2017 fails and is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.11.2016 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham-Kutch, in the Sessions Case No. 57 of 2011, is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P if any, to the trial court forthwith.