JUDGMENT :

SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. Challenging the judgment dated 09.08.2012 in S.C. No. 24/2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, these two appeals have been filed. Criminal Appeal No. 3677/2012 is filed by accused no. 2 and Criminal Appeal No. 3629/2012 is filed by accused nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5.

2. The trial court has held accused nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 guilty of offences punishable under sections 489B, 489C and 420 of IPC. Accused no. 2 is held guilty of offences punishable under sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 489E and 420 of IPC. The police actually filed charge-sheet against six accused persons; accused no. 6 Smt. Lata has been acquitted of all the offences and that accused nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 have also been acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 489A, 489D and 489E of IPC.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-1 B.S. Malgatti, Police Inspector, DCIB, Gulbarga received credible information on 22.03.2009 that some persons were involved in circulation of fake currency notes and that they were about to come near Tintani Shri Mouneshwar Temple to distribute the notes for circulation. Thereafter PW-1 secured independent panchas and taking the help of other police personnel, came near the said temple and seized the fake currency notes from the possession of the accused who are in appeal. He held further investigation and filed the charge-sheet.

4. The trial court after holding trial came to conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Though all the panch witnesses turned hostile, the trial court placed reliance on the evidence given by the police witnesses and the recovery of the incriminating articles at the instance of some of the accused and concluded that the case against the appellants-accused had stood established.

5. Assailing the findings of the trial court, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused no. 2 in Criminal Appeal 3677/2012 argues that the trial court erroneously came to a conclusion that the prosecution case would stand proved. His argument is that none of the independent panch witnesses supports the prosecution case. Based on evidence given by police witnesses the trial court should not have held that the prosecution case would stand proved. His argument is that PW-1 was the complainant, he was the police officer who conducted raid and drew up panchanama as per Ex.P-2 at the spot. He conducted further investigation also. Being the complainant he should not have conducted investigation and thereby the prosecution case gets vitiated.

6. Secondly, he argues that PW-1 violated mandatory provision found in section 100 of Cr.P.C. When he conducted raid, he should have secured two responsible persons from the locality for acting as panchas, instead he took with him panchas from another place. They might have turned hostile but there was lapse on the part of PW-1 in not securing the local panchas.

7. Thirdly, he argues that the mandatory provisions of sections 165 and 166 of Cr.P.C. were not followed by PW-1. In this regard he argues that when PW-1 went to Manvi for recovering some of the incriminating articles, PW-1 did not inform the same to the local police. He also did not apply to the Magistrate for issuance of search warrant nor he recorded reasons. Whenever a police officer goes to a place beyond his jurisdiction for conducting investigation, he must inform to the SHO of the place where the investigation is to be conducted. If this procedure is not followed, investigation can be said to be bad and thereby accused cannot be convicted.

8. Learned counsel also argues that if the entire evidence is perused, it can be very well stated that the prosecution case is full of improbabilities. In Ex.P-2, it is written that the accused were loudly speaking that they wanted to circulate the fake currency notes and this is an improbability that could be made out in the prosecution case as no accused will discuss loudly drawing the attention of others. Lastly h