1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4381 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.874 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra through P.I. Local Crime Branch, Aurangabad (Rural), Aurangabad (Sillod Police Station City) ..Applicant (Original Complainant) Versus Jivan s/o Deosingh More and ors. ..Respondents (Orig.Accused 1 to 3 & 5) Mr.K.S.Patili, A.P.P. for applicant Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 4 Appeal abated as against respondent No.3 as per Court’s order dt. 1.9.2010 Respondent No.1 served CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 9th December 2010 PER COURT : 1. By this application the applicant-State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, dated 30.8.2008, in Sessions Case No.148/2006, acquitting the respondents of offence punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecution the Investigating Officer had received secret information about the counterfeit currency notes. According to the prosecution accused No.1 had tendered a counterfeit currency note to P.W.2 Santosh, who was working as a Manager of the liquor shop. However, P.W.2 Santosh had admitted that he could not identify the person who had tendered the counterfeit currency note, as there was 2 queue of 4 to 5 persons in the shop. A raid was arranged at the railway station and from the possession of accused Nos.2 and 3 four counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- came to be seized. The witnesses to the aforesaid seizure i.e. P.W.1, P.W.6 and P.W.8 did not support the prosecution. The trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that despite the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that counterfeit currency notes had been seized from the possession of accused Nos.2 and 3. 3. We have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the applicant and Mr Ghanekar, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 4. It appears that during the pendency of this application the respondent No.3 died and accordingly, an order came to be passed on 1.9.2010 declaring that the proceedings against respondent No.3 had abated. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court and we have perused the record and proceedings. The view taken by the trial Court appears to be a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. In that light of the matter, therefore, we see no merit in the present application and the application is accordingly dismissed, leave refused. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/4381.08criappln)