JUDGMENT Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Rural Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused a-1 to a-9 for the offence under sections 420 r/w 511 I.P.C and acquitted a-6 to a-9 and convicted a-1 to a-5 for the offences under sections.420 and 511 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months each and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each. 2. The prosecution has examined eight (8) witnesses including the investigation officer. after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted the accused a-1 to a-5 finding them guilty for the offences under sections 420 r/w 511 I.P.C. The version of the prosecution is that the accused have committed the offence of doubling the currency. 3. In the trial Court, the PW1 turned hostile. aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, a-2 preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the conviction imposed by the trial Court against a-2 vide judgment in Crl.a.No.176 of 2011, dated 28.12.2012. 4. aggrieved by the judgment in Crl.a.No.176 of 2011 dated 28.12.2012, the petitioner/a-2 preferred a revision before this Court on various grounds stating that the trial Court ought not to have convicted the a-2 as PW1 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court ought not have been relied on the confessional statement recorded by the police in the absence of the mediators, as it is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further stated that the complainant and the investigation officer is one and the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that PW4, PW5 and PW6 have stated about the seizure of the property from a-1 and a-2 and further stated that except the confessional statement no incriminating material was seized from the petitioner/a-2. Hence, prayed to allow the criminal revision case by setting aside the conviction against petitioner/a-2. 5. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court categorically discussed the grounds raised by the petitioner herein. The lower appellate Court after coming to the conclusion that there are no infirmities in the judgment of the trial Court confirmed the same. 6. Hence, prayed to allow the criminal revision case by setting aside the conviction against petitioner/a-2. 5. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court categorically discussed the grounds raised by the petitioner herein. The lower appellate Court after coming to the conclusion that there are no infirmities in the judgment of the trial Court confirmed the same. 6. This Court being a revisionsal Court exercising jurisdiction under sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. cannot re-appreciate the evidence and I find no reasons to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. However, recording the grounds raised by the petitioner/a-2, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to six (6) months instead of one year six months. 7. accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Registry is directed to send back the record if any, along with the copy of this order to the Court below. 8. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.