IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.240 of 2005 Between: N.Shankaraiah, S/o.Rajamallu, Aged about 28 years, R/o.Manakondur, Karimnagar District. And others …Petitioners/Appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.240 of 2005 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) is filed by the petitioners – A-1, A-2 and A-3 challenging the judgment dated 10.02.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, whereby and whereunder, the conviction and sentenced passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, against A-1 to A-3 for the offence punishable under Section 489-B of I.P.C. in S.C.No.60 of 1999 dated 02.05.2001 is set aside, and their sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years imposed for the offence punishable under Section 489-C of I.P.C. is reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, while confirming the fine amount of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case may be stated as follows: On 15.04.1992 in the evening hours, the police officials of Karimnagar – I Town, on receiving credible information that some offenders are moving in Karimnagar bus stand with counterfeit currency notes, rushed to the bus stand and apprehended A-1 who was immediately produced by Special Party before Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar. The S.I. of Police interrogated A-1, he confessed that he, along with A-2 and A-3, purchased counterfeit currency notes from A-4 and three bundles of Rs.10/- denomination of counterfeit currency notes amounting to Rs.3,000/- were seized from his possession under a cover of Panchanama – Ex.P.1, in the presence of mediators. On information furnished by A-1, the police proceeded to Room No.41 of Lucky Lodge, Karimnagar, where A-2 and A-3 were arrested and Rs.2,500/- counterfeit currency notes of Rs.10/- denomination were seized from each of them under the cover of Panchanamas – Ex.P.3 and P.4, respectively, in the presence of mediators. A-1 and A-2 stated that A-4 handed over the said forged notes to them. It is stated that A-4 purchased the counterfeit currency notes worth Rs.25,000/- of Rs.10/- denomination from A-5 for circulation. Subsequently, on 21.01.1993, A-4 was also arrested in the presence of panch witnesses under the cover of Panchanama. Thereafter, police filed a Charge-sheet and all the accused (A-1 to A-5) were produced before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad, Karimnagar and the learned Magistrate had committed the case in P.R.C.No.131 of 1996 to the Court of Sessions, Karimnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C., as the cases under 489-B and 489-C are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. In turn, the Sessions Court, Karimnagar, after numbering the Case as S.C.No.60 of 1999, made over the case to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, for disposal according to law. 3. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9, besides marking the case properties as M.Os.1 to 3. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the accused. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence let in by the prosecution and other material brought on record, found guilty and convicted all the accused i.e. A-1 to A-5 for the offence punishable under Section 489-B of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default of which, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. They were also found guilty and convicted under Section 489-C of I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default of which, to under Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month. 5. Challenging the same, A-1 to A-5 preferred Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2001 before the lower appellate Court, who, after re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, had partly allowed the appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against A-4 and A-5; and modified the sentence imposed against A-1 to A-3 by reducing the Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years to that of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, besides confirming the fine amount of Rs.500/- to be paid by A-1 to A-3 and the default sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence of the lower appellate Court, A-1 to A-3 are before this Court in this revision, as petitioners. 7. It is the case of the revision petitioners that all the independent prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.5, 6, 7 and 10 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Even otherwise, they went to the extent of stating that no counterfeit currency was seized from any of the accused in their presence. It is their further case that the trial Court ought not have believed and relied on the evidence of the remaining witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 4, 8, 9, 11 and 12, as they were all police officials; that none of the prosecution witnesses had spoken about the fact that the petitioners were found in possession of the counterfeit currency notes having knowledge that the currency notes in their possession were counterfeit currency notes; that as the offence took place as long back as in the year 1995 and thus fourteen years have elapsed from the date of the incident, a lenient view may be taken while disposing of the revisional case. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances and also the legal position, rightly found the accused guilty for the offences they were charged with and convicted and sentenced them accordingly; that on appeal by the petitioners, the lower appellate Court, taking a lenient view, had modified and drastically reduced the quantum of sentence imposed by the trial Court against the petitioners from Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and as such, the same is not liable to be interfered with in this Criminal Revision Case. 9. Now the point that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the judgments of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court are correct, legal and proper? 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of Supreme Court reported in M.Mammutti v State of Karnataka[1] in support of his contentions. 11. In M. Mammuti (supra), it was the case of the appellant therein that he did not know that the currency notes were counterfeit currency notes, as he received the said notes as consideration for sale of tamarind fruits. The prosecution also has not examined the appellant therein in order to find out whether he knew that the currency notes were counterfeited. 12. But, in the present case, the prosecution examined the witnesses and was successful in proving the guilt of the petitioners – accused before the trial Court that all the accused were knowingly dealing with counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners’ is not relevant and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. In the circumstances, this Court is of considered view that the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar cannot be said to be erroneous warranting interference from this Court. 14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J December 17, 2009 BVV [1] AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1705