Judgment 1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 21/2012 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 489 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts leading institution of the appeal can be stated as follows. The incident took place on 25/09/2011. The original complainant Ravindra Shende owns a shoe shop near S.T. stand of Newasa (Khurd). On that day when he and his employee Mayur Pandit were present in the shop at about 4.30 p.m., one unknown customer entered the shop. He said that he wanted to purchase a pair of lady Chappal. After showing various Chappals to him, he approved one Chappal. For making payment of the price of pair of Chappal, Rs.100/-, the customer gave currency note of Rs.1,000/-denomination. The complainant returned the amount of Rs.900/-to the said customer. 3. After some time of leaving of the customer, the complainant suspected about the currency note of Rs.1,000/-and then he went towards side where the customer had gone. He and his employee held the customer at S.T. stand and they brought him to the shop. There was no pair of Chappal purchased by him with the customer. The complainant insisted for return of his amount of Rs.900/-and he took the amount of Rs.900/-, which he had given to the said customer, from the customer. He returned the currency note of Rs.1,000/-denomination to the customer. As Ravindra Shende had suspicion that it was counterfeit note, he kept the customer in the shop and he contacted the police. The Police came to the shop. It transpired that the customer had two such currency notes with him. The Police took the customer and the currency notes with them to Newasa Police Station. The report of Ravindra Shende came to be recorded on 27/09/2011 and on that basis Crime No. I-195/2011 came to be registered against this customer for offences punishable under section 489(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The two currency notes came to be taken over under panchanama. 4. During investigation, the police made inquiry with neighbouring shop owners. They found that this customer had entered the shop of one Dnyandev Mhaismale but Dnyandev had not sold the footwear as Dnyandev had no change for giving the remaining amount to the customer. The two currency notes came to be taken over under panchanama. 4. During investigation, the police made inquiry with neighbouring shop owners. They found that this customer had entered the shop of one Dnyandev Mhaismale but Dnyandev had not sold the footwear as Dnyandev had no change for giving the remaining amount to the customer. Currency note of Rs.1,000/-was offered to Dnyandev also by this customer. 5. Police forwarded the aforesaid two currency notes to Nashik Indian Security Press. Opinion was collected from the Press that both the currency notes were counterfeit. During investigation, the associate of the appellant came to be arrested after few days but nothing was recovered from him. The charge sheet came to be filed against these two persons for aforesaid offence. 6. In the trial Court, the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses. The witness on the panchanama of the seizure of the two currency notes was required to be cross examined for the State, as in initial examination he tried to say that the panchanama was not drawn as per his say. Subsequently, during cross examination made by learned A.P.P., he admitted the contents of the panchanama and it was proved in his evidence. The trial Court has believed all the witnesses. As nothing was recovered from the other accused and there was evidence only against the appellant, the other accused came to be acquitted. 7. This Court has heard arguments of both the sides. Original record is perused. Much was argued for the appellant in respect of delay caused in giving of F.I.R. and in respect of the circumstances that the panch witness turned hostile. The fact that the two currency notes produced in the Court are counterfeit currency notes is however not disputed. Learned A.P.P. supported the decision of the trial Court. Some argument was advanced for the appellant for taking lenient view as no other crime was registered against him in the past. 8. Ravindra Shende (P.W.2) has given evidence that at about 4.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 25/09/2011, the appellant / accused entered his shop and after purchasing lady footwear, he handed over currency note of Rs.1,000/-denomination. He deposed that as the price of the footwear was Rs.100/-he returned Rs.900/-to the accused. 8. Ravindra Shende (P.W.2) has given evidence that at about 4.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 25/09/2011, the appellant / accused entered his shop and after purchasing lady footwear, he handed over currency note of Rs.1,000/-denomination. He deposed that as the price of the footwear was Rs.100/-he returned Rs.900/-to the accused. He deposed that after some time when he had discussion with his employee Mayur Pandit (P.W. 1), he had suspicion about currency note and so they went towards S.T. stand where the accused had proceeded. He has deposed that they traced the accused in the vicinity of S.T. stand and they brought him to the shop. He has deposed that he took back his amount of Rs.900/-which was still with the accused and he returned the currency note of the accused to him. He has deposed that he contacted police, the Police came to the shop and Police took the accused to the Police Station. He has deposed that he followed them to Police Station and Police recovered two currency notes of Rs.1000/-denomination from the possession of the accused. He has given evidence that as it was Sunday and as Police wanted to confirm that the currency notes were counterfeit, his report was not recorded by police on that day and his report came to be recorded on 27//09/2011 when it was confirmed from the cashier of State Bank of India Branch Newasa that the two currency notes were counterfeit. F.I.R. of Ravindra is duly proved at Exh. 13 and it is consistent on material points of substantive evidence of Ravindra. 9. The evidence of Mayur Pandit (P.W.1) is similar to the evidence of Ravindra. Though name of Mayur Pandit (P.W.1) is not mentioned in F.I.R., there is no reason to disbelieve Mayur in view of nature of evidence given by him. Further, there is not only the evidence of Mayur Pandit, there is evidence of two other witnesses which can be used as circumstantial evidence as against the appellant / accused. Dnyandev Mhaismale (P.W.5) owns a similar shop which is in the vicinity of bus stand, Newasa. He has deposed that on that day between 4.30 p.m. and 5.00 p.m., the accused had entered his shop and he wanted to purchase footwear worth Rs.100/-and the accused had tendered him a currency note of Rs.1,000/-. He has deposed that as he had no change, the customer left his shop. He has deposed that on that day between 4.30 p.m. and 5.00 p.m., the accused had entered his shop and he wanted to purchase footwear worth Rs.100/-and the accused had tendered him a currency note of Rs.1,000/-. He has deposed that as he had no change, the customer left his shop. He has deposed that subsequently he came to know that after his shop, the accused had gone to the shop of Ravindra and he had used same currency note. Ramnath (P.W.6) is also having a shop though different articles are sold in his shop. He has deposed that when he heard about the arrival of police and action taken against the accused, he went to the shop of Ravindra and there he learnt that the accused had used counterfeit note of Rs.1,000/-denomination. 10. Some discrepancy is brought on record in the cross examination of Ravindra (P.W.2) and Mayur Pandit (P.W.1). Two currency notes are produced on the record and they are having different numbers. The currency note, Article “A” is identified by Mayur Pandit (P.W. 1) as the note tendered by accused when Ravindra (P.W.2) identified currency note which is marked as “B”. This Court holds that this discrepancy can not go to the root of the case as in the F.I.R. no such mention was made by Ravindra. The F.I.R. shows that in the presence of Ravindra, both currency notes were recovered and their description was given in F.I.R. which is at Eh. 13. 11. Rajendra (P.W.3) a panch witness on the seizure panchanama dated 27/09/2011 was cross examined by learned A.P.P.. His evidence shows that he accepted all the suggestions given during cross examination by the A.P.P. and he again accepted all the suggestions given to him during cross examination taken by defence counsel. He went to the extent of admitting that he used to visit Police station to sign panchanama and he is a stock panch witness of the Police. He went to the extent of admitting that he never took care to read contents of the document as the documents were prepared by police. In view of nature of this evidence, this Court holds that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Rajendra (P.W.3). He went to the extent of admitting that he never took care to read contents of the document as the documents were prepared by police. In view of nature of this evidence, this Court holds that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Rajendra (P.W.3). In view of the evidence of aforesaid three shop owners and Mayur showing that on 25th itself currency notes were found with the accused, not much weight can be given to the panchanama shown to be prepared on 27/09/2011. For the same reason, there is no need to discuss the evidence of Satish Jadhav (P.W.7) P.S.O. who prepared this panchanama. 12. Ravindra Ghunghashe (P.W.4) was working as Police Constable. He is examined to prove that the aforesaid notes were carried by him to Indian Security Press and he produced muddemal along with covering letter in sealed envelope. The document at Exh. 19 is consistent with his evidence. In the evidence of Satish Jadhav (P.W. 7) the other record regarding muddemal property is duly proved. This record Exh. 23 and 24 is consistent with the oral evidence. Vasant Palve (P.W. 8) did some investigation and his evidence shows that the muddemal was sent to Indian Security Press when he made investigation. The record of Indian security Press which is at Exh. 37 shows that these two currency notes are counterfeit notes. The reasons for the same are mentioned in Exh. 37. This record is consistent with the case of complainant. 13. It was argued for the appellant that when the incident took place on 25th, the report came to be recorded on 27th and the accused came to be formally arrested on 27th. It was submitted that this delay has created reasonable doubt about case of the prosecution. This Court holds that this submission is not acceptable. Police could have shown date of incident as 27/09/2011, if there was intention to concoct the case. The reason is given by the complainant Ravindra Shende (P.W.2) that Police wanted to confirm that currency notes were really counterfeit and they confirmed it through the employees of the State Bank of India. It can be said that Police could have registered the crime and they could have taken such steps subsequently also. The reason is given by the complainant Ravindra Shende (P.W.2) that Police wanted to confirm that currency notes were really counterfeit and they confirmed it through the employees of the State Bank of India. It can be said that Police could have registered the crime and they could have taken such steps subsequently also. It can be said that it was mistake on the part of police to do such thing but due to such mistake of investigating agency, no doubt is created about case of the prosecution and no benefit of this circumstance can be given to the accused. 14. It appears that for accused reliance was placed on 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2062 (Nilesh Naik Vs. State of Goa) in the trial Court. In this case, this Court has discussed importance of lodging F.I.R. immediately after incident. The facts and circumstances of each and every case are always different. This Court has no hesitation to hold that in view of facts of this case delay has not created reasonable doubt about the case of prosecution and the delay has not created doubt about credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It is already observed that no importance can be given to so-called seizure panchanama as the notes were already recovered from the accused on 25th. 15. Alternatively it was submitted for the appellant that as two notes are shown to be recovered from possession of accused, the case may fall under section 489 (C). This submission is not at all acceptable. There is specific evidence given by at least three witnesses to show that at one place the accused attempted to use counterfeit currency note and at other place he actually used this counterfeit currency note. Though there is no record like purchase bill in respect of pair of shoes, this Court is required to keep in mind that small shop keepers do not prepare such record. This Court sees no reason to disbelieve the shop owners and Mayur. The appellant was not known to them and there was no reason for them to make false allegation against him. 16. For the prosecution, reliance was placed on the case reported in 1995 CRI. L. J. 2658 (Supreme Court) Ponnuswamy Vs. State). This Court sees no reason to disbelieve the shop owners and Mayur. The appellant was not known to them and there was no reason for them to make false allegation against him. 16. For the prosecution, reliance was placed on the case reported in 1995 CRI. L. J. 2658 (Supreme Court) Ponnuswamy Vs. State). The facts of this case show that when the accused was found in possession of forged currency note and he did not offer explanation as to where from he had obtained the currency notes, the conviction given for offences punishable under sections 489(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld. In the present case also it needs to be kept in mind that not only one but two counterfeit currency notes of Rs.1,000/-denomination were recovered from this boy who had just crossed age of 18 years. It can be said that it was necessary for him to give information as to from where he had collected the two notes. He was not having any other amount as per the record. So, this Court holds that the punishment given for offence punishable under section 489 (B) of the Indian Penal Code is proper. 17. For the appellant reliance was placed on some reported cases like:- (i) 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3717 Bombay High Court (Abdul Aahad Hajam Vs. State of Maharashtra) (ii) 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 2512 Bombay High Court (Javed Abdul Aziz Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra). (iii) IX – 1995 (3) T.J. Mohan Vs. State Madras High Court. In all these cases, the High Court has observed that it is necessary for prosecution to prove that it was within knowledge of the accused that the currency notes were counterfeit and he had tried to use them as genuine. The facts and circumstances of each and every case are always different. Relevant facts and circumstances of this case are already discussed and they show that knowledge is easily inferable. This Court holds that the observations made by High Courts are of no use and further there is the case of Supreme Court showing that the burden is also on the accused to explain the things. In absence of such explanation, it can not be inferred that he had no knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeit. 18. This Court holds that the observations made by High Courts are of no use and further there is the case of Supreme Court showing that the burden is also on the accused to explain the things. In absence of such explanation, it can not be inferred that he had no knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeit. 18. The discussion made above shows that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under section 489 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years. As per the record, no other crime was registered against this accused. He had just crossed 18 years of age. He was used to circulate fake currency notes. In view of this, this Court holds that imposing imprisonment for a period of five years would be just and sufficient in this case. So, to reduce sentence the following order is made. The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order in Sessions Case No. 21/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur dated 07/03/2012 is hereby modified only to reduce the substantive sentence. Substantive sentence is reduced from seven years rigorous imprisonment to five years rigorous imprisonment. Other part of the order regarding sentence remains the same. Copy of this judgment is to be supplied to the appellant free of costs through Jail Superintendent and it is to be informed to him that he can challenge the decision of this Court in Supreme Court and he can get legal aid there.