1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1172 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 941 OF 2009 Mansur Azaruddin Shaikh .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Ms. Trupti Shetty for the Applicant Mrs. A. A. Mane APP for the State CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 19th November, 2009. P.C.: 1. This application is for bail by the accused who is convicted under Section 489-B & C of the Indian Penal Code for using counterfeit notes and being in possession of other counterfeit notes. Several notes have been recovered in two seizures from the residence of the applicant. The notes were recovered are under appropriate panchnama. However, the note seized from the complainant after use by the applicant in a transaction of sale of certain goods has not been seized under panchnama. It is argued that because it is not seized under panchnama, offence under 2 Section 489(a) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. The argument is misconceived. That note has been handed over by the complainant to the police. FIR has been come to be registered upon the said handing over upon say of the complainant. Hence, such note was not required to be seized. It was already with the prosecuting agency. 2. The case under Section 489(a) is made out upon the complaint alone. It may or may not be corroborated by seizure. The Applicant has been convicted by one Court upon considering the evidence. The offence involved is a offence against the country. 3. The Applicant’s permanent residence is in Jharkhand. He is not shown to own or even rent a house in Mumbai. The Applicant’s brother was earlier prosecuted for the same offence but has been acquitted in the case. 4. There is a great propensity in the applicant to repeat the offence pending this appeal. 5. Application for suspension of the sentence and the grant of bail is not made out. Application refused. (R. S. DALVI, J.)