1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1558 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.329 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Devidas Chandrabhan Wagh & Ors. .. Respondents Shri S.D.Kaldate, Assistant Public Prosecutor for applicant-State Shri S.J.Salgare, Advocte holding for Smt.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for respondents 1, 2 and 3 Shri K.D.Bade Patil, Advocate for respondent No.4 Application abates as against Respondent No.5 as per Court’s order dated 19.1.2010 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ DATE : 27th January 2010 COURT’S ORDER (Per Shrihari P.Davare, J.) 1. Perused. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-State seeking leave to file the appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.220/2006 on 25.1.2008. 3. The respondents-accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly scanning on computer the counterfeit 2 currency notes with the help of printer and scanner, and for having allegedly selling the fake currency notes to other persons and using the same as genuine, and also for allegedly found in possession of 137 forged currency notes of Rs.100/- intending to use the same as genuine. 3. The prosecution examined inasmuch as nine witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the respondents-accused persons. However, on perusal of the judgment of learned trial Judge, it appears that the learned trial Judge has given the reasoning in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 for not accepting the evidence of complainant i.e. P.W.4 as well as the evidence of panch witnesses and more particularly the panchnama (Exh.83) and the said reasoning for not accepting the evidence does not appear to be perverse and same cannot be faulted with in the light of the matter that the allegedly seized counterfeit currency notes were not sealed while seizing the same under panchnama (Exh.83). Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that the said alleged fake notes were seized on 16.9.2006 whereas the said currency notes were sent to Chemical Analyzer’s office for examination purpose on 27.10.2006, i.e. almost after about one and half months and no plausible explanation has been given for the said delay. Hence, the learned trial Judge has observed that there is no legal positive evidence against the respondents-accused to base the conviction against them and the view adopted by the learned trial Judge is a possible view to be adopted after scrutinising and assessing the evidence on record and, therefore, we are 3 of the considered view that no interference therein is warranted. 4. In the circumstances, present application is sans of merits and, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed and hence same stands dismissed accordingly. Leave refused. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/1558.08criappln)