JUDGMENT : G. BASAVARAJA, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2014 passed in S.C.No.120/2012 by the Adhoc District and Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Chintamani (for short trial 'Court'). 2. Parties are referred to the same rank what they had before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Superintendent of Police, CA Squad, CID has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). It is alleged by the prosecution that on 31.05.2011 at about 03.00 p.m. when the Circle Inspector of Police went to check the vehicles along with the staff near the bypass road, leading to Sidlaghatta town on Chintamani-Chikkaballapura road, near Sidlaghatta the accused, after seeing them, tried to run away. The Police Inspector suspecting the accused instructed his staff to catch him. When the accused was questioned, he has not responded properly. His pant pocket was bulging, when he was questioned, he replied that he has kept money bundle. So due to suspension when they checked they found Rs.1,000/- denomination 94 notes which were numbered as JAB 912880 and it was resembling the currency notes. When he was questioned he has admitted that said notes are counterfeit currency notes. Hence same was seized in the presence of panchayathdars. Accused knowing fully well that the notes are counterfeit notes and kept the same with him for transaction. Thus, committed offence under Sections 489(B)and 489(C) of the IPC. Thereafter, Police has submitted charge sheet before the JMFC, Sidlaghatta. The Court has taken cognizance and remanded the accused to judicial custody and case was registered in C.C.No.357/2012. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of sessions. The accused was enlarged on bail. 4. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed the charges for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC. The same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all 13 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 13 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all 13 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 13 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to lead any defence on his behalf. 6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489(B) of IPC and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489(C) of IPC and passed a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the trial Judge has committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has committed offence, even though there are glaring contradictions in evidence of PWs.6 to 13, the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence given by the witnesses to seizure mahazar. Even though PWs.1 to 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution, they have clearly stated that they have not seen the seizure of the fake currency notes from the possession of the appellant. They have also stated that they have not at all gone to the place where the appellant was apprehended. They have clearly stated that they have not witnessed this particular seizure mahazar except attesting their signature at Exs.P1 and 2. They have not at all stated anything against the accused. They have stated in their examination-in-chief that they have neither seen the accused nor any seizure of fake currency note at any time. They have stated that the signatures were obtained by the Police at the Police Station. Further it is submitted that PW6-Circle Inspector has not explained from where he collected the panch witnesses for the seizure mahazar. The Circle Inspector- PW6 has not pasted identification slips containing the signature of the witnesses and his staff including the signature on the alleged fake currency notes. Even the Circle Inspector has not mentioned anything for having not pasted the identification slips for the fake currency notes seized in mahazar-Ex.P2. This clearly shows that seizure is doubtful. The Circle Inspector- PW6 has not pasted identification slips containing the signature of the witnesses and his staff including the signature on the alleged fake currency notes. Even the Circle Inspector has not mentioned anything for having not pasted the identification slips for the fake currency notes seized in mahazar-Ex.P2. This clearly shows that seizure is doubtful. Moreover, even in Ex.P1, second seizure mahazar, it is not mentioned that the special identification slips containing the signatures of the witnesses and the Sub-Inspector-PW11 is not found on the fake currency notes to prove and establish that the fake currency notes were seized from the possession of the appellant. Further it is submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of other witnesses. Though there is no cogent or corroborative evidence by the prosecution, and there are material omissions and contradictions, the trial Court has convicted the accused, which is not sustainable under law. On all these grounds, he prays to allow this appeal. To substantiate his argument he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umashanker vs. State of Chhattisgarh , AIR 2001 SC 3074 . 8. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. B. Lakshman, submits that the official witnesses have clearly stated about the seizure of counterfeit currency notes seized from the possession of the accused. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for consideration:- 1) Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489(C) of IPC.? 2) Whether the trial Court is justified in passing sentence of 4 years for the offence punishable under Section 489(C) of IPC. ? 3) What Order ? 10. My answer to the above points are as under: "Point No.1 in the affirmative, Point No.2 partly in the affirmative, Point No.3 As per final Order." Regarding Point No.1:- 11. I have examined the materials on record placed before this Court. ? 3) What Order ? 10. My answer to the above points are as under: "Point No.1 in the affirmative, Point No.2 partly in the affirmative, Point No.3 As per final Order." Regarding Point No.1:- 11. I have examined the materials on record placed before this Court. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 31.05.2011 at about 03.00 p.m., the Police have apprehended the accused along with 94 notes of Rs.1,000 denomination which were numbered as JAB 912880 from the possession of the accused. To substantiate this, the prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 13. PWs. 1 to 4 -Venkatareddy, Nagaraja, Mubarak Pasha and Baksh said to be attesters to the seizure mahazar-Ex.P.1, have not supported the case of prosecution. PW.5-Somashekar has deposed regarding the submission of F.I.R. to the Court on 31.05.2011. PW.6-Ramesh K.N., Police Inspector, PW.8-Rajgopal, Police Constable, PW.9-Narayana Swamy HC 110, PW.10- D.S.Rajendra Prasad, PW.11-B.R.Siddalingappa, PSI, PW.12-Krishnapa CPI, PW.13-N.Venkatesha Dy.S.P., have deposed as to their respective investigation. All these witnesses have clearly deposed in their evidence that on 31.05.2011 at 03.00 p.m. while they were proceeding in a Government Jeep No.KA-40 G 58, from Chinthamani to Chikkaballapur near the curve towards Sidlaghatta town, they have stopped the jeep on seeing one person trying to run away from the place. Then they suspected and apprehended him and found him in possession of 94 notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination. They seized the same in the presence of panchas and drawn mahazar-Ex.P2 Thereafter, PW.6 lodged complaint as per Ex.P4. On the basis of the complaint by CBI, case was registered in Crime No.39/2011 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC and submitted F.I.R. to the Court without causing any delay. The seizure mahazar also placed on the same day before the Court. The accused have not placed any materials to discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses while recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has stated that he was doing tailoring work, the Police Inspector has given clothes for stitching of shirt, pants and also ladies clothes for stitching, when he asked for money, Police took him and assaulted him. The accused has not whispered anything as to the seizure of 94 counterfeit notes. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The accused has not whispered anything as to the seizure of 94 counterfeit notes. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Even on re-examination and re-appreciation of the evidence, I do not find any legal or factual error in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489(C) of IPC. Hence, I answer point No.1 in affirmative. Regarding point No.2:- 12. The trial Court has passed a sentence against the accused for a period of 4 years. Before passing the sentence, the trial Court has observed that the accused has stated that he is having 4 minor children and he is eking out his livelihood by doing work under the owner. The alleged commission of offence under Section 489(C) of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend upto seven years or with fine or with both. The order sheet of the trial Court reveals that the accused was arrested on 01.06.2011. The trial Court has taken the custody of the accused and sent him to judicial custody. On 09.01.2015 the accused was released on bail by this Court. In all, the accused was in judicial custody for a period of 4 months 21 days. The appellant has not been convicted for any offence prior to this judgment passed against him. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, age and occupation of the accused, keeping in mind the interest of family members of the accused, it is just and proper to reduce the sentence from 4 years to 4 months and 21 days along with fine of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 in partly affirmative. Regarding point No.3:- 13. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: i. The appeal is partly allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2014 passed in S.C No.120/2012 by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 489(C) of IPC is confirmed and the sentence passed by the trial Court is modified as under: a. The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 4 months 21 days which he has already undergone in judicial custody and to pay of fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. b. The period of imprisonment of 4 months 21 days undergone by the appellant/accused is given set off. c. The appellant/accused shall deposit the fine amount before the trial Court within one month. d. Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with TCR to the trial Court.