JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is preferred under Sec. 374 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment and order dtd. 15/3/2019, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-6, Nashik, in Sessions Case No.145 of 2009, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 489(c) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC', for short), and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fne of Rs.25,000.00, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: Senior P.I. Mr.A.T. Powar attached to Gangapur Police Station, Nashik received information to the effect that some persons are indulging in counterfeiting the currency notes in a shop named as, "Mobile World' owned by one Sanjay Varma situated at D'souza Colony, Near Swami Samarth Chowk, Gangapur road, Nashik, and the counterfeit currency notes are being circulated. On receipt of the information, he summoned police offcers on 19/11/2008 and informed them about the information received by him. Panchas were called and they were appraised about the information received by him. Thereafter, the police offcers and the panch witnesses visited the said shop. One person who found present at the premises who disclosed his name as Sudhakar Pande (accused no.1) and currency notes having denomination of Rs.1000.00, and half printed notes of Rs.500.00 denomination were recovered from the said shop. The instruments, such as, Laptop, LCD, CPU, Laser Printer, xerox machine, lamination machines, paper cutter, ink bottle etc., were also seized and the pananchama in that regard was recorded (Exhibit-57). FIR was recorded with Gangapur police station vide C.R.No.I-226 of 2008, was registered on 20/11/2008. Accused Sudhakar Pande was arrested. During his custodial interrogation, he gave statement to the police recorded under Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act. He disclosed that Sanjay Varma and Pramod Thakre (appellant) hatched the conspiracy to counterfeit and circulate fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs.1000.00 and Rs.500.00, while they were in jail. The notes were counterfeited and kept in Zen Car. Accused Sudhakar Pande, took the police party to D'souza colony and showed the Zen car bearing No.MH-15/AF-5555, which was parked at the said place. On inquiry, the name and address of the owner of the car was disclosed as Pramod Thakre (accused no.3). The currency notes were kept under the back seat of car. Accused Sudhakar Pande, took the police party to D'souza colony and showed the Zen car bearing No.MH-15/AF-5555, which was parked at the said place. On inquiry, the name and address of the owner of the car was disclosed as Pramod Thakre (accused no.3). The currency notes were kept under the back seat of car. There was a Saffron colour bag containing counterfeit notes and having stamp of Mobile World Shop. On search of the car, currency notes of denomination of Rs.1000.00, containing 900 notes were recovered and seized. The driving licence of accused no.3 was also recovered. Panchanama (Exhibit-76-A) was prepared. During the course of investigation, the recovered currency notes were sealed. Thereafter, the currency notes were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. The report of FSL was received indicating that all the currency notes were fake. Accused were arrested. On completing investigation charge-sheet was fled for the offences under Ss. 489-A, 489-B and 489-C of IPC. The other accused are absconding. 3. Charge was framed by order dtd. 2/5/2015, under Sec. 489-A read with 34, 489-B read with 34 and 489-C read with 34 of IPC, against the appellant. 4. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses in support of the prosecution case. 5. Vide judgment and order dtd. 15/3/2019, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 489-C read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment and pay fne, as stated hereinabove. The appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 489-A and 489-B of IPC. 6. During the pendency of Appeal, the appellant preferred Criminal Application No.486 of 2019, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. This Court by order dtd. 25/6/2019, remanded the matter back to the Sessions Court for examining Kishor Gurav and Vasant Gite, as witnesses and to record the evidence of any other witness as Court witnesses. 7. The prosecution had examined about 8 witnesses during trial. Pursuant to directions of this Court vide order dtd. 25/6/2019, the trial Court had recorded evidence of Kishor Gurav ( P.W.No.9) and Vivek Ghagi (C.J.S.D. and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Amrawati) (P.W.10). 8. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant for the offence under Sec. 489-C of IPC. 25/6/2019, the trial Court had recorded evidence of Kishor Gurav ( P.W.No.9) and Vivek Ghagi (C.J.S.D. and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Amrawati) (P.W.10). 8. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant for the offence under Sec. 489-C of IPC. The prosecution is required to prove that the appellant was in possession of counterfeit notes to establish the offence under Sec. 489 - C of IPC. There was no cogent evidence on record to prove the said charge. The appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 489-A and 489-B of IPC. Although the appellant was the owner of the vehicle, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant had a knowledge that there was counterfeit notes kept in the vehicle, which were allegedly recovered from the vehicle, during the course of investigation. There is no evidence to establish the link between the appellant and the coaccused who were allegedly involved in counterfeiting and/or possessing the counterfeit notes. Merely on the ground that the vehicle stands in the name of the appellant, no adverse inference about possession of the counterfeit notes can be drawn against him. The evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding recovery of counterfeit notes from the car or about the seizure of instructions from the premises of Mobile World. There are serious discrepancies in the evidence related recovery which cannot be believed. It is not established that the instruments which were recovered from the premises can be used for manufacturing the counterfeit notes. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Sec. 489-C of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has drawn an adverse inference against the appellant on the basis of the fact that the appellant had preferred an application for return of property i.e. car before the trial Court. The application preferred by the applicant was not adduced in evidence. Apart from that, merely on the ground that the appellant had preferred such application, the adverse inference of having counterfeit coins in his possession, cannot be drawn. The application preferred by the applicant was not adduced in evidence. Apart from that, merely on the ground that the appellant had preferred such application, the adverse inference of having counterfeit coins in his possession, cannot be drawn. This incriminating circumstance was not put to accused in his statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. In his statement recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. and even in the application preferred before the trial Court, it is the contention of the appellant that the car was registered in his name and it was owned by him. He had obtained the loan amount from one Jadhav, and, after clearance of the said amount, he was entitled for possession of the car. The prosecution has failed to establish that on the date when the car was seized by the investigating agency, the applicant had knowledge that the counterfeit notes were kept in the said vehicle. There were discrepancies in seizure/sealing of articles. The prosecution has not adduced any cogent evidence to show that the appellant was acting in connivance with co-accused, who were allegedly manufacturing the counterfeit notes. It is submitted that Mr.Gite whose statement was recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. has not been examined by the prosecution. Merely on the basis of the statement, the appellant cannot be convicted. It does not amount the substantive evidence. The evidence recorded by the trial Court pursuant to the directions of this Court is of no assistance to convict the appellant for any offence. In the alternative it is submitted that in the event the conviction under Sec. 489-C of IPC is confrmed, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to sentence already undergone by appellant. There are no criminal antecedents against appellant. The incident is of 2008. The appellant was on bail during trial and his conduct was not adverse. The applicant is in custody for a period of about 2 years and 11 months. 9. Learned advocate for the appellant had relied upon the following decisions. (i) Imran Shabbir Gauri Vs.. State of Maharashtra, passed by Bombay High Court, in Criminal Appeal No.831 of 2015, on 31/3/2021 ; (ii) Arvind Bakelal Varma Vs. State of Maharashtra, passed by Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1402 of 2011, on 10/5/2013; (iii) Asim Jamaloddin Momin Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3920 (iv) Faijan Razavan Khan and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, passed by Bombay High Court, in Criminal Appeal No.831 of 2015, on 31/3/2021 ; (ii) Arvind Bakelal Varma Vs. State of Maharashtra, passed by Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1402 of 2011, on 10/5/2013; (iii) Asim Jamaloddin Momin Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3920 (iv) Faijan Razavan Khan and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra,2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3920 (v) Ashraf Hussain Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra , 1996 CRI. L.J.3147 (vi) Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra , 1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1593 10. Learned APP submitted that there is suffcient evidence against the appellant. Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Sec. 489-C of IPC. The trial Court has assigned cogent reasons for convicting him for the said offences. The evidence is suffcient to show that the appellant had a knowledge about counterfeit notes in the vehicle. It will have to be construed that he was in possession of counterfeit notes. It is further submitted that evidence of witnesses recorded pursuant to the directions of this Court and the contents of the statements under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C., which has been adduced in evidence is suffcient to come to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant for an offence under sec. 489-C has been established beyond doubt. The defence of the accused is weak. Appellant had admitted in his application fled before the trial Court that he is owner of the vehicle, and, he sought the custody of the vehicle. The contents of the application fled before the trial Court, and, the explanation given by the appellant, in the statement recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., is contradictory. Thus, the prosecution has proved the offence under Sec. 489-C of IPC. Learned APP has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Fainul Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 549 . 11. I have scrutinized the evidence recorded by the trial Court, prior to the judgment of conviction and post judgment in pursuant to the directions of this Court. 12. P.W.1 Yashwant Hire has acted as a panch witness for the seizure effected in shop viz. Mobile World. According to him, he along with the other panch he visited shop 'Mobile World'. Some currencies of Rs.1000.00 and Rs.500.00, were recovered from the shop. 12. P.W.1 Yashwant Hire has acted as a panch witness for the seizure effected in shop viz. Mobile World. According to him, he along with the other panch he visited shop 'Mobile World'. Some currencies of Rs.1000.00 and Rs.500.00, were recovered from the shop. They also found instruments such as colour printer, colour cartridges, computer screens, printers, CPU, monitors Laptop etc., from the said premises. Articles were seized and panchanama was drawn. In the cross- examination, it is stated that the articles which were identifed by him were not having Wax seal, lac seal or police station seal. The labels which were shown to him were not affxed on the articles. On 19/11/2008, he visited Gangapur Police Station, for passport work. He did not observe that some information is reduced into writing regarding the incident. Personal search panchanama of witness or another panch or any police offcer is not drawn at police station. No separate panchanama of the vehicle was drawn. He did not receive any written notice requesting him to remain present as panch on 19/11/2008. Till 20/11/2008, the police were not knowing his name. He communicated with the police offcer for about 10 minutes. No report was shown to him regarding the information received by the police. He was not informed about the secrete information. There was more than one vehicle in which he proceeded to the spot. He do not remember the exact number of the vehicles. On 7/8/2015, when the examination-in-chief was recorded, he had read the contents of the panchanama. It was given to him for reading. In the said panchanama, no number of Government vehicle is mentioned. PSI R.D. Gosavi was present with him at the time of panchanama. On 19/11/2008, further procedure regarding the panchanama was carried out by PSI Gosavi. There is no specifc mention in the panchanama as to near which square the raid was conducted. Before entering into the shop, no personal panchanama was recorded for his personal search or search of other pancha was carried out. He do not remember whether any additions were made in the panchanama in his presence. He do not recollect as to on how many papers he put his signature. The cartridges were not having seal. He do not remember whether the process of wrapping the articles in cloth piece had occurred. There was crowd at the time of the raid. He do not remember whether any additions were made in the panchanama in his presence. He do not recollect as to on how many papers he put his signature. The cartridges were not having seal. He do not remember whether the process of wrapping the articles in cloth piece had occurred. There was crowd at the time of the raid. He has not visited police station on the next day. He did not remember whether in his presence muddemal was kept in safe custody. The label is not having seal of police station. Fake currency notes had Rs.500.00 denomination are not having any mark of identifcation to show that the currency notes were identifed by them at that time. Fake currency note of Rs.1000.00 denomination one sided printed are not having any mark of identifcation to show that the currency notes were identifed by him on that day. The label affxed on it is not having seal of the police station. It does not bears the dates below the signature. All the articles are not having any specifc marks on the basis of which one can identify the same. 13. P.W.2 Deepak Girigosavi has deposed that he was attached to Gangapur Police Station, Nashik. He lodged the report with police station. He was Assistant Police Inspector at the relevant time. His superior Mr.A.P. Powar had informed him that secret information is received that some persons are preparing and manufacturing fake currency notes. In the shop named Mobile World, counterfeit currency notes are manufactured. The shop is owned by Sanjay Verma. On receipt of information, the police proceeded towards the spot to ascertain the genuineness of information. Sudhakar Pande was present at the shop. During the raid, they found articles used for preparing fake currency notes, blank papers which are used for manufacturing fake currency notes, computer, printer, CPU, printer, monitors, halfly prepared currency notes, cutter, flter, copy machine, laser printer etc. he identifed the articles in Court. In cross-examination, he deposed that in the FIR he did not mention that secret information was received on 19/11/2008 at 08:00 p.m. No raid was effected on 20/11/2008. Special report regarding receipt of secret information has to be forwarded to the superior by reducing it into the writing. The entry into the station diary regarding secret information has to be recorded. He had not verifed written information in the station diary. Special report regarding receipt of secret information has to be forwarded to the superior by reducing it into the writing. The entry into the station diary regarding secret information has to be recorded. He had not verifed written information in the station diary. No separate personal search panchanama of police offcials, the panch and vehicle was recorded before the raid. He was not aware about the details of pancha, who proposed to act as panch witness for the raid. He came to know about their names on 19/11/2008, at the police station. He did not lodge the report that the information was received at about 08:00 to 08:30 p.m., and that the raid was commenced between 08:30 to 08:45 p.m. He had seen log book of the Government vehicle. In the frst column, the number of the vehicle has to be mentioned. In the said register, the number of vehicle was not mentioned. The report Exhibit-24 does not bear the date and time below his signature. FIR should reflect the endorsement regarding the station diary entry. It is not so mentioned in Exhibit-64. The FIR mentions that the raid was carried out on 20/11/2008. No incident had occurred on 20/11/2008. 14. P.W.3 Jaydeep Ranka has stated that he was conducting business of selling paper stationary at Ashok Stambh Nashik. On 14/8/2008, he received phone from one Niranjan Shah, who is dealing with the computer stationary business. He inquired about the CISSS Computer Tank Ink, which was required by his customers. Niranjan Shah came to his shop and purchased the ink from his shop. He issued bill, which was produced before the Court. In crossexamination, he stated that Exhibit-69, is a tax invoice. It is not a sale bill. The tax invoice does not show as to who has purchased the ink. It does not bear name of the purchaser. As per the practice, he used to issue bill including the sales tax to the customer. In his statement he has not mentioned who came to his shop and purchased the ink. 15. P.W.4 Shripal Raka stated that he is conducing business by name Prishita Traders and selling computers and laptops. He is proprietor of said traders. He was shown bill dtd. 18/11/2008. He admitted that the bill is of his shop and the Laptop is purchased by Sanjay Verma. Police inquired with him regarding sale of Laptop. 15. P.W.4 Shripal Raka stated that he is conducing business by name Prishita Traders and selling computers and laptops. He is proprietor of said traders. He was shown bill dtd. 18/11/2008. He admitted that the bill is of his shop and the Laptop is purchased by Sanjay Verma. Police inquired with him regarding sale of Laptop. It did not happen that in 2009, police visited his shop and shown one photograph. He knows the person whose photograph was shown to him, but he did not purchase the Laptop. Learned APP was permitted to put leading questions in the form of cross - examination. He stated that it is not correct that he had stated before police that photograph of Pramod Thakre is shown to him, and, he has disclosed to the police that he had come to his shop for purchasing the Laptop. Police recorded his statement. He identifed Pramod Thakre (accused no.3). In the cross-examination by defence, he stated that the seller's signature is required on the bill. The invoice of the said bill has to be reflected in the seller's income tax statement. Address of the purchaser is not mentioned in the bill. He has not mentioned that the payment is accepted by him in cash or cheque. If the amount is more than Rs.20,000.00, he is liable for fne twice the amount. The carbon copy of the bill is kept on record. The amount is required to be mentioned in the balance sheet. The accused is not acquainted with him. He never came to his shop prior to 18/11/2008. On the day of recording of evidence, the accused was shown to him in the Court. He had identifed the accused as he was shown to him. 16. P.W.5 Vijay Bage is a panch witness. According to him, he was called by the police for panchanama on 20/11/2008. Accused Sudhakar Pande was present with the police. He made statement that currency notes were kept in the vehicle. All of them proceeded to the spot. Car bearing No.MH-15-AF-5555 was found parked. Bundles of currency notes of Rs.1000.00 and Rs.500.00, were found in the car. Licence was found. The car, licence and currency notes were seized. He identifed the currency notes and driving licence. In cross-examination, he stated that he knows the police because they visit his tea stall. All of them proceeded to the spot. Car bearing No.MH-15-AF-5555 was found parked. Bundles of currency notes of Rs.1000.00 and Rs.500.00, were found in the car. Licence was found. The car, licence and currency notes were seized. He identifed the currency notes and driving licence. In cross-examination, he stated that he knows the police because they visit his tea stall. He do not remember whether the accused sitting in the Court is same who was presented at police station. Accused was handcuffed. 17. P.W.6 Kishor Suryawanshi is police inspector. He was attached to Gangapur Police Station, Nashik. According to him, Senior Police Inspector Powar had received information that one Sanjay Verma is preparing bogus currency notes in the shop known as Mobile World. He was informed that raid was required to be effected at the shop where the bogus currency notes are prepared. Panch witnesses were summonsed. All of them visited the shop. Bogus currency notes were found in the shop. Material used for preparing fake currency notes was found. It was seized. Sudhakar Pande disclosed that his colleague Sanjay Verma and Pramod Thakre had decided to prepare the counterfeit currency notes when they were in Nashik road jail. One Gupta took the currency notes for supply in the market. Spot panchanama was prepared. Complaint was registered. Accused were arrested. On 20/11/2008, Sudhakar Pande showed willingness to disclose the vital information. Panchas were called. He stated that Sanjay Varma and Pramod Thakre prepared counterfeit notes and kept the same in Zen car. They proceeded to the place where the car was parked. The accused showed Maruti Zen car bearing No.MH-15-AF-5555. He showed counterfeit currency notes concealed under the seat of the car. Driving licnece of Pramod Thakre was found in the car. The articles were seized. In the cross- examination, he stated that secret information was received on 19/11/2008, at 09:30 p.m. Entry of information is required to be made in the station diary and the information has to be passed on to the senior offcer. He did not record the entry in the station diary. The date 20/11/2008, mentioned in the complaint is incorrect regarding receipt of information. No information was received on 20/11/2008, and, no muddemal was seized on 20/11/2008. Entry about the credit of muddemal is recorded in the case diary. Secret information is not written or reduced in writing in his presence. He did not record the entry in the station diary. The date 20/11/2008, mentioned in the complaint is incorrect regarding receipt of information. No information was received on 20/11/2008, and, no muddemal was seized on 20/11/2008. Entry about the credit of muddemal is recorded in the case diary. Secret information is not written or reduced in writing in his presence. On 19/11/2008, he was at the police station. He was member of raiding party. He did not receive any secret information on 20/11/2008. It was received on 19/11/2008. Subsequently the information was given to the superior offcer for further action. The vehicle number of the vehicle used by the police is not recorded in the complaint. The copy of Malkhana register is not fled alongwith charge-sheet. It is not true that name of accused no.1 Pramod Thakre was not revealed in the investigation. It is true that it was revealed in the investigation conducted by subsequent offcer that vehicle bearing No.MH-15-AF- 5555, was purchased by Sanjay Jadhav against hand loan on 11/8/2007. 18. P.W.7 Vivek Saraf is the police inspector. He stated that he had forwarded material seized to C.A. at Kalina. He recorded statements of witnesses. Muddemal was handed over to C.A. He recorded statement of Vasant Gite. He arranged recording of statement of Gite before Magistrate under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. He submitted charge-sheet. The statement of Kishor Gurav was recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. During investigation, it transpired that the accused had printed the counterfeit currency notes, and, he was found in the custody of same while effecting raid. In the cross- examination, he deposed that the date mentioned in the complaint is false. Articles were not seized on 20/11/2008. Names of panchas are not mentioned in the complaint. He cannot say anything about the Malkhana register. There is no entry in the Malkhana register showing that muddemal received by him on 12/2/2009, for sending it to Kalina. He did not seize the vehicle. During investigation, it is found that the vehicle was in custody of Sudhakar Pande. On 19/11/2008 and 20/11/2008, when accused Pramod Thakre was arrested, he did not seize the vehicle. After arresting accused, nothing incriminating was found with him. His fnger prints were not found on any articles seized during the investigation. 19. P.W.8 Prakash Kale stated that he was working in Printing Press. He examined the counterfeit notes. On 19/11/2008 and 20/11/2008, when accused Pramod Thakre was arrested, he did not seize the vehicle. After arresting accused, nothing incriminating was found with him. His fnger prints were not found on any articles seized during the investigation. 19. P.W.8 Prakash Kale stated that he was working in Printing Press. He examined the counterfeit notes. He found that all the notes were forged. The notes were fake. The report was forwarded by him. In the cross-examination he stated that his educational qualifcations is B.Sc. LLB. He has not gone through any training of examination of currency notes. He is called as Dy. Manager of Design Currency note. The notes were received on 29/12/2008. He had not annexed the photographs of the currency notes from back position. 20. P.W.9 is Kishor Gurav. His evidence was recorded on 17/2/2020, pursuant to order dtd. 25/6/2011, passed by this Court. According to him, he was acquainted with accused Pramod Thakre (appellant). The accused made a phone call to him and stated that he has some work on the computer. He told him to meet him on the next day. He was taken to shop viz. Mobile World at Gangapur Road, Nashik. The accused told him to scan the notes of denomination of Rs.500.00 and Rs.1000.00. He assured him that he would not misuse the same. At the insistence of accused, he took out the prints of the notes. Two persons by name Pande and Verma were present in the shop. Subsequently, he came to know that the appellant was arrested for counterfeiting notes. He identifed the accused through Video Conferencing. In cross-examination, he stated that he do not know what was the mobile number of accused Pramod Thakre, in 2009. Police did not seize his mobile and SIM card. He did not lodge any report to the police when accused Pramod Thakre told him to print, scan the currency notes. Police approached him for the frst time after six months. He narrated the incident to police. He had completed technical training in computer. He has stated to the police that accused had made a phone call to him and stated that he had some work relating to computer. He also stated that accused called him to meet him on next day. He was scared and left the shop. All these facts are not mentioned in his statement. 21. He has stated to the police that accused had made a phone call to him and stated that he had some work relating to computer. He also stated that accused called him to meet him on next day. He was scared and left the shop. All these facts are not mentioned in his statement. 21. P.W.10 Vivek Ghagi is the Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati. On 17/7/2009, he recorded statement of Vasant Shankar Gite under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. The statement was marked as Exhibit-101. The signature was marked as Exhibit-128. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not feel that witness was frightened while recording the statement. The statement was recorded about 7 to 8 months after FIR. He did not inquire with investigating offcer regarding delay. The witness was produced before him at 11:00 a.m. he had not directed investigating offcer to produce the witness at 11:00 a.m. He inquired with witness about place from where he has come to Court. He had not made any endorsement to that effect on the statement. He did not enquire with witness about his criminal antecedents. 22. The trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence, recorded prior to the directions of this Court has arrived at the conclusion that no case is made out for convicting the appellant under Sec. 489-A and 489-B of IPC. However, the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 489-C of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge had observed that on appreciation, anaylsis and close scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses, there is no manner of doubt that the secret information was received by senior police inspector Mr.Powar and on that basis, the accused Sudhakar Pande was apprehended and fake currency notes were recovered from the shop. The articles were also recovered from the shop. Car was seized. Counterfeit currency notes from the car were also seized. The car was registered in the name of the appellant. 23. Trial Court has observed that all the witnesses have successfully stood the test of examination. The seizure of the counterfeit currency notes had been established. The appellant had moved an application before the Court vide Exhibit-15 for releasing the car on Suparatnama. In the said application, accused had mentioned that he is owner of the vehicle. He took loan of Rs.1,00,000.00 from Sanjay Jadhav, on executing usanvar pavti. The seizure of the counterfeit currency notes had been established. The appellant had moved an application before the Court vide Exhibit-15 for releasing the car on Suparatnama. In the said application, accused had mentioned that he is owner of the vehicle. He took loan of Rs.1,00,000.00 from Sanjay Jadhav, on executing usanvar pavti. He cleared the entire loan and entitled for custody of car. He submitted affdavit Exhibit-16 affrming that he is owner of the car. The vehicle was released to the appellant/accused vide order dtd. 1/1/2011. The defence of the accused that he has sold the vehicle prior to six months, is falsifed by his own contention. He failed to give how fake currency notes were found in his vehicle. Except denial, nothing was disclosed by him. The Court found testimonies of police offcer and panch witnesses inspiring and corroborated. The trial Court, however, found that there is no cogent evidence to show that appellant was manufacturing or using currency notes. In the circumstances, he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 489-A and 489-B of IPC and convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 489-C of IPC. 24. In statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant had stated that he had sold the vehicle prior to four months. It was in his name since there was loan on the vehicle and so it was not transferred. While cross-examining P.W.7 by defence/appellant, it was brought on record that during investigation, it was found that vehicle was in custody of accused Sudhakar Pandey. He cannot say whether vehicle was mortgaged towards Sanjay Jadhav. Thus, the appellant claims that he is owner of vehicle. He also claims that it was mortgaged with Sanjay Jadhav and loan was obtained on the car and that it was sold to Sajay Jadhav. His defense does not explain how car was found containing counterfeit notes and how it was in custody of accused Sudhakar Pandey. 25. Learned APP on the basis of the further evidence recorded by the trial Court in pursuant to the order passed by this Court viz. evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10, submitted that admittedly, the statements of Kishor Gurav and Vasant Shankar Gite, were recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. Kishor Gurav was examined before the trial Court. He had attributed specifc role to the appellant. evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10, submitted that admittedly, the statements of Kishor Gurav and Vasant Shankar Gite, were recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. Kishor Gurav was examined before the trial Court. He had attributed specifc role to the appellant. He has stated that he was called by the accused at the shop premises. He was told to scan fake currency notes. Although he cannot convicted now for the offence under Sec. 489-A and 489-B of IPC in the absence of Appeal preferred by the State, the fake currency notes were found at the shop premises, which would be an additional evidence to convict him for the offence under Sec. 489-C of IPC. 26. In the case of Fainul Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.(Supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the scope of the statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. observed that there cannot be a generalised presumption of prejudice to an accused merely by reason of any omission or inadequate questions put to an accused thereunder. Ultimately, it will be a question to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. There will have to be a cumulative balancing of several factors while the rights of an accused to a fair trial are undoubtedly important, the rights of victim and society at large for correction of deviant behaviour cannot be made subservient to rights of an accused by placing the latter at a pedestal higher than necessary for a fair trial. The decision was relied upon in the light of an issue raised by the accused that certain circumstances were not put to the accused in his statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. 27. Another question relates to effect of statement of witnesses recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to note that during the course of investigation, statements of Vasant Gite and Kishor Gurav were recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. vide order dtd. 25/6/2019, this Court directed trial Court to record evidence of Kishor Gurav and Vasant Gite. Evidence of Vasant Gite could not be recorded. Evidence of learned J.M.F.C. (P.W.10), who had recorded statement of Vasant Gite was recorded. Statement was marked as Exhibit-101. 25/6/2019, this Court directed trial Court to record evidence of Kishor Gurav and Vasant Gite. Evidence of Vasant Gite could not be recorded. Evidence of learned J.M.F.C. (P.W.10), who had recorded statement of Vasant Gite was recorded. Statement was marked as Exhibit-101. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that mere recording statement of the judicial offcer, and that mere adducing the statement recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C., in evidence the version of the said witness cannot be accepted in the absence of substantive evidence. In that regard, he relied upon decision of this Court in the case of Imran Shabbir Gauri Vs. State of Maharashtra, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.831 of 2015 on 31/3/2021. In the said decision, it was observed that, Sec. 164 statement can be used only for the purpose of corroboration or contradictions and cannot be treated as substantive evidence. 28. Learned advocate for appellant has relied on other decisions on various issues. In the case of Arvind Bakelal Verma Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra), this Court has observed that although the articles were allegedly have been used in printing the fake counterfeit currency notes were recovered, there has to be evidence which is required to be proved that the same articles can be used for printing fake currency notes. Merely picking up the articles and bringing them to the police station will not by itself prove the charge under Sec. 489-A and 489-B of IPC. In the case of Ashraf Hussain Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra), the Court found discrepancies about sealing on the articles seized during investigation. The Court had observed that there was no proof that articles were sealed and they were so sealed till being sent to Chemical Analyser, and, rejected the evidence of recovery. Similar view was taken in the case of Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra), where the Division Bench of this Court found discrepancies in relation to the recoveries effected during investigation, which were not affxed with lac seals. 29. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the event the Court fnd that the conviction under Sec. 489-C is proper, the appellant may be released on the basis of the sentence undergone by him. He is in custody for a period of two years and eleven months. 29. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the event the Court fnd that the conviction under Sec. 489-C is proper, the appellant may be released on the basis of the sentence undergone by him. He is in custody for a period of two years and eleven months. He relied upon decision of this Court in thr case of Asim Jamaloddin Momin Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra), wherein the accused was convicted for the offence under Sec. 489-C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fve years. In the said decision, although the conviction was confrmed, the accused were directed to be released on the basis of sentence undergone by them. 30. he appellant was tried for offences punishable under Sec. 489-A, 489-B and 489-C of IPC. The trial Court had convicted the appellant for the offence under Sec. 489-C of IPC. He has been acquitted for the two other offences. The acquittal for offences under Sec. 489-A of IPC has not been challenged by the State. This Court had remanded the matter to the trial Court, without disturbing the judgment of the trial Court for recording further evidence of witnesses. Statement of Vasant Gite was recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. on 17/7/2009. The seizure was effected on 19/11/2008. Thus, the statement was recorded after about 8 months from date of seizure. This witness was not examined. P.W.10 had recorded statement of this witness. The other witness Kishore Gurav has been examined on 27/7/2020. His statement under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 30/10/2009 i.e. after a period of about eleven months from date of incident of seizure. As per his version before Court, the accused took him to shop Mobile World and told to scan notes of denomination of Rs.500.00 and Rs.1000.00. He took out prints of notes. Two persons Pande and Verma were present in shop. After two days, he came to know that accused were arrested for forgery of currency notes. His version discloses that his role was in the nature of accomplice. Police approached him after 4 to 6 months of incident. His statement was recorded. There are omissions in his evidence such as (1) appellant gave phone call to him and told him about work relating to computer; (ii) Accused called him and informed to meet him on next day; (iii) He was scared and left the shop. Police approached him after 4 to 6 months of incident. His statement was recorded. There are omissions in his evidence such as (1) appellant gave phone call to him and told him about work relating to computer; (ii) Accused called him and informed to meet him on next day; (iii) He was scared and left the shop. The alleged printing of currency notes referred to by P.W.9 and the seizure dtd. 19/11/2009, has no link. The appellant was not present at shop or date of seizure. 31. It is relevant to note that appellant has been acquitted for offence under Sec. 489-A and 489-B of IPC. There is no challenge to acquittal. Apart from the fact that appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Sec. 489-A and 489-B of IPC in this Appeal, the evidence of P.W.9 does not establish the said offences. Vasant Gite is not examined. His statement under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. is brought in evidence through P.w.10. P.w.10 could be cross-examined only with regards to circumstances in which statement of said witness was recorded. Witness Vasant Gite could not be cross-examined. Statement under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C., cannot be treated as substantive evidence. In the order dtd. 25/6/2019, this Court had observed that, infact Kishor Gurav should have been arraigned as accused. 32. The counterfeit notes were found at two places viz. shop Mobile World and in the car. The defence of the accused in the statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is that he had sold vehicle to Sanjay Jadhav prior to 4 months. The vehicle was in his name because there was loan on the vehicle and so it was not transferred. Thus, he sold vehicle to Mr.Jadhav. He did not state that loan was obtained from Mr.Jadhav. It was sold four months ago to Mr.Jadhav. The R.T.O. record shows name of appellant as owner. In the cross - examination of P.W.7, the accused was brought on record that investigation revealed that vehicle was in custody of accused Sudhakar Pandey on 19/11/2008 and 20/11/2008. The suggestion was given to this witness that vehicle was mortgaged to Sanjay Jadhav. Thus, the defense of accused is that vehicle was sold to Mr.Jadhav and/or vehicle is mortgaged to jadhav. In application for return of property, the accused claimed that the is registered owner. He took loan from Mr.Jadhav and cleared it and entitled for custody. The suggestion was given to this witness that vehicle was mortgaged to Sanjay Jadhav. Thus, the defense of accused is that vehicle was sold to Mr.Jadhav and/or vehicle is mortgaged to jadhav. In application for return of property, the accused claimed that the is registered owner. He took loan from Mr.Jadhav and cleared it and entitled for custody. No documents in that regard were produced. Accused did not examine Mr.Jadhav as defense witness. There is no explanation for possession of vehicle with Sudhakar Pandey. Counterfeit currency notes were recovered from car at the instance of Sudhakar Pandey. Driving license of appellant was found in car. Undisputely, car is registered in the name of the appellant. Thus, appellant cannot escape from the fact that car was in his possession and ownership and fake currency notes were recovered from car, and, hence, he is liable to be convicted for the offence under Sec. 489-C of IPC. There is suffcient evidence to establish that the applicant has committed an offence under Sec. 489-C of IPC. 33. The maximum sentence provided under Sec. 489-C is seven years. Although, in the statement of one of the witness, it is disclosed that some conspiracy was hatched while the accused was in jail. But, said statement is not legally admissible. In any case, nothing is brought on record that there are criminal antecedents against the appellant. He is in custody for two years and eleven months. The seizure was effected on 19/11/2008. Considering the circumstances, although the conviction is confrmed for the offences punishable under Sec. 489-C of IPC, the appellant can be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him. The fne amount has to be deposited and in the event fne is not deposited, he has to under go sentence of simple imprisonment by way of default in payment of fne. 34. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: (i) Criminal Appeal No.497 of 2019, is partly allowed; (ii) The judgment and order dtd. 15/3/2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-6, Nashik, in Sessions Case No.145 of 2009, convicting the appellant for the offence under Sec. 489-C of IPC, is maintained. 34. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: (i) Criminal Appeal No.497 of 2019, is partly allowed; (ii) The judgment and order dtd. 15/3/2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-6, Nashik, in Sessions Case No.145 of 2009, convicting the appellant for the offence under Sec. 489-C of IPC, is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for conviction, is modifed and reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant; (iii) The appellant is directed to be released from prison, if fne is deposited; (iv) Criminal Appeal No.497 of 2019, stands disposed of accordingly.