JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Present Government Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2004, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Ist Fast Track Court, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2001, “State vs. Vivek Arora”, by which, the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 31.08.2000, Senior Sub-Inspector Yogendra Pal Singh Bhadoriya (PW1), Sub-Inspector Ravindra Kumar Chamoli (PW2), Senior Sub-Inspector J.P. Juyal (PW3) and Inspector Sanjay Singh (PW9) along with other police personnel reached the house of co-accused Ranveer alias Rajesh and arrested him. Coaccused Vinay was accompanying the police personnel. On interrogation, co-accused Ranveer alias Rajesh told that he counterfeited fake currency notes along with Vivek Arora (present respondent-accused) and one Shyam and supplied the same to the customer. Respondent-accused Vivek Arora was arrested on 31.08.2000 at 10.30 p.m. on the pointing of co-accused Ranveer alias Rajesh. Nine thousand fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- were recovered from the possession of the present respondent-accused. A recovery memo was prepared. In spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. On 01.09.2000, computer, printer, monitor and counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the room of Shyam on the pointing of co-accused Ranveer alias Rajesh and present respondent-accused.

3. At present, this Court is concerned only with the case of Vivek Arora, present respondent-accused.

4. An FIR (Case Crime No. 707 of 2000) (Ext. Ka. 5) was registered against the present respondent-accused. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka. 15) was submitted by Sub-Inspector Ram Chandra Tripathi (PW10) against the present respondent-accused.

5. The charge was framed against the respondent-accused in respect of offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. (PW1) Senior Sub-Inspector Yogendra Pal Singh Bhadoriya, (PW2) Sub-Inspector Ravindra Kumar Chamoli, (PW3) Senior Sub-Inspector J.P. Juyal and (PW9) Inspector Sanjay Singh were member of the raiding party. They are witnesses to the recovery and arrest of the respondent-accused. (PW4) Constable Brahampal Singh is the scriber of the First Information Report of Case Crime No. 707 of 2000 (Ext. Ka. 5). (PW7) A.S.I. Surendra Singh, (PW8) S.I. Mohan Shyam Saraswat and (PW10) S.I. Ram Chandra Tripathi are Investigating Officers.

7. Statements of the respondent-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein, he denied the entire evidence of the prosecution.

8. Respondent-accused has examined Gagan Deep (DW1) in his defence evidence.

9. Learned Trial Court heard arguments, appreciated the evidence on record and held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent-accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. Heard Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-accused.

11. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General, contended that learned Trial Court has completely overlooked the glaring facts of the case, according to which, the involvement of the respondent-accused, has been fully proved. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is not justified in the eyes of law.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, has supported the impugned judgment.

13. The law is well settled that the judgment of acquittal strengthen the presumption of the innocence of the accused. Equally, it is the duty of the Court to see that the guilt do not escape punishment. Therefore, I have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution.

14. According to the evidence of