1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2010 Deepak Vasudeo Talreja ....Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Mr.S.V.Marwadi i/b Mr. Santosh Chari for Applicant Mr. S.R. Shinde - APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 21ST APRIL, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 489 (B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years. 3. The Applicant is in jail since almost about one year i.e. from 28th May, 2009. 2 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that there is no material on record to show that the Applicant had knowledge about the counterfeit note which he had offered to the PW-1. The prosecution has not produced any material on record and there is no material to show that the said note was counterfeit note. Apart from that note, 11 notes were found. In respect of those 11 notes, opinion was given by the expert that they were not counterfeit notes. The Trial Court has given its finding only in respect of possession of the 11 notes for the offence under section 489(C). It is further submitted the statements of the Panchas do not support the present case. The seizure of those notes from the Applicant has not been established. 5. The learned APP for the State has invited my attention to the judgment and order of the Trial Court and submitted that the Trial Court has observed that the question asked to the accused under section 313 regarding counterfeit notes has not been denied by him. He further submitted that PW-1, to whom the said note was given has stated that the Applicant had given the counterfeit note to her. 6. In my view, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail, firstly he is in jail since last about almost one year, secondly, there is nothing on record to 3 indicate that the note which was given by the Applicant to PW-1 was a counterfeit note since it has not been produced by the prosecution in the Court and there is no expert's opinion that it was a counterfeit note. Hence, there is no material on record to show that the Applicant had knowledge that the said notes were counterfeit notes. Thus, prima facie, the Applicant has good case on merits. The Applicant has undergone one year of sentence. Hence, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail. 7. The Applicant be released on bail on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned police station once in a month. 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)