ORDER : A convict/accused preferred this criminal revision case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. questioning the conviction recorded against him under Section 489-C I.P.C. by both the Courts below. The respondent herein is the State on whose prosecution the trial was held by learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in Sessions Case No.247 of 2007 and by a judgment dated 28.03.2008 the present revision petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 489-C I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The appeal preferred by the convict was heard by learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry and by a judgment dated 15.12.2008 the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment of guilt, conviction and sentence rendered by the learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for revision petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted arguments. 4. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the judgment of the Courts below suffers from manifest error of law or fact requiring interference? 5. Point: The facts leading to the present revision are required to be noticed. In Donkarai Village this revision petitioner runs a Kirana Stores and in the last 10 years he was in business dealings with Sri K.Marthanda/PW.1 who was also a kirana dealer. The revision petitioner used to purchase goods from PW.1 on credit and cash basis. It was during those transactions the revision petitioner was allegedly due to pay some amount of money to PW.1 and therefore, on 10.06.2005 he went and paid Rs.8,000/- in cash to PW.1 in discharge of money he owed. This payment was made by way of currency notes which include currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/-. There were ten such currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination which were marked as MO.1. PW.1 suspected this MO.1 and therefore, he went to Andhra Bank where with the help of the staff he found that they were suspicious notes and they were not genuine and therefore, on 17.06.2005 he went to police station and handed over those currency notes and lodged Ex.P.1 written information. Acting upon it Crime No.8 of 2005 was registered by Donkarai Police Station. Acting upon it Crime No.8 of 2005 was registered by Donkarai Police Station. During the course of investigation along with other material objects this MO.1 was also forwarded to forensic science examination and the analyst under Ex.P.23 report confirmedly stated that their paper texture, print quality, printing ink registration, colour scheme, watermarks, security thread, micro lettering, latent image, fluorescent fibers and u-v fluorescence are different and they are counterfeit currency. It was in those circumstances, the investigation proceeded and resulted in filing of a charge sheet and finally the trial took place before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. 6. It may also be noted here that according to prosecution, various amounts of money that were allegedly given by accused in repayment of his debt to various other persons was also detected and such currency notes from those people were recovered in the form of MOs.2 and 3 and for all that the accused was prosecuted. 7. At the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.23 and Mos.1 to 3. For the charge that was framed under Section 489-C I.P.C. and also when confronted with incriminating material under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the response of the revision petitioner was one of total denial. He did not explain any facts and he did not adduce any evidence. In this revision no questions are raised and no points are argued about method and manner in which the investigation took place and the procedure that was followed in conducting trial. The entire argument of the revision petitioner turns on the questions about appreciation of evidence. 8. At the trial many witnesses pertaining to MOs.2 and 3 did not support the prosecution version and therefore, to that extent the trial Court disbelieved the case of prosecution. However, with reference to MO.1 learned trial Court believed the evidence of PW.1 and that of PWs.14, 15 and 16 and considered Ex.P.23/scientific report and observed that with requisite knowledge the accused passed on MO.1 currency notes to PW.1. It was for that reason it convicted the revision petitioner. 9. All the contentions that were raised before the trial Court were also raised before the appellate Court on behalf of this revision petitioner stating that the evidence on record was not enough to find guilt of the revision petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and sought for acquittal. It was for that reason it convicted the revision petitioner. 9. All the contentions that were raised before the trial Court were also raised before the appellate Court on behalf of this revision petitioner stating that the evidence on record was not enough to find guilt of the revision petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and sought for acquittal. The learned appellate Court reappreciated the entire evidence and found that the observations of the trial Court in accepting the prosecution evidence and in finding the accused guilty was appropriate. At para No.22 of its judgment, the learned appellate Court in fact recorded an observation stating that it was a case of use of counterfeit currency notes covered by Section 489-B I.P.C. which is graver in nature but since the charge was framed under Section 489-C I.P.C. it thought to preserve the judgment of the trial Court and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 10. In this revision learned counsel for revision petitioner, while referring to the evidence on record, argued that the very case of prosecution indicates that no counterfeit currency was recovered from the possession of the accused/revision petitioner and yet he was found guilty under Section 489-C I.P.C., which penalizes possession of counterfeit currency and therefore, the judgments of the Courts below are erroneous. Learned counsel submits that there was a delay of seven days in lodging first information report and that remained unexplained. The contention of prosecution that PW.1 had solicited opinion from bank officers was not established by examining any bank officer during the course of trial. It is further argued that when the currency notes were given by revision petitioner to PW.1, the evidence of PW.1 was that he kept cash in his cash box and he went out of station for five or six days during which time his son attended the business in his shop and it was only thereafter he came back and picked up this currency notes and then gave complaint to police. That evidence of PW.1 gave rise to any doubt as to whether MO.1 was the cash that was really given by accused to PW.1. That in the gap of nearly seven days when the business was run there was every possibility that the currency notes in the cash box could have been rotated. That evidence of PW.1 gave rise to any doubt as to whether MO.1 was the cash that was really given by accused to PW.1. That in the gap of nearly seven days when the business was run there was every possibility that the currency notes in the cash box could have been rotated. It is on these points and on facts and law learned counsel urges that the judgments of the Courts below are erroneous. 11. As against this, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that looking at the entire case of prosecution one could notice that on apprehension of this revision petitioner the police interrogated him and he disclosed the source from which he received such counterfeit currency and that prompted the investigating police to go to Tamil Nadu along with this revision petitioner where some investigation was conducted but the kingpin of the counterfeit currency notes by name Sri Tamil Thambi could not be traced and was found absconding. It is further argued that it is not a case of innocent being prosecuted. It is submitted that both the Courts below properly considered the evidence on record and they found that the evidence proved the guilt of the accused to the hilt. 12. It is in the context of these rival submissions, the controversy has to be considered. 13. PW.1 in his Ex.P.1 as well as in his evidence stated that accused was indebted to him. While cross-examining PW.1 defence did not challenge this part of his evidence. PW.1 stated that it was in discharge of that debt the accused had come to him and gave him money which includes MO.1. MO.1 is a bunch of ten currency notes each of Rs.500/- denomination. Thus, it was totaling to Rs.5,000/-. 14. According to PW.1, the debt was Rs.8,000/- and the entire debt was paid. It seems the remaining balance of Rs.3,000/- was not in the denomination of Rs.500/-. It was only with reference to this Rs.500/- currency notes PW.1 entertained suspicion. At para No.18 of its judgment, the learned trial Court stated that from the evidence of PW.1 it was clearly seen that with average intelligence PW.1 suspected the genuineness of the currency notes. That by touching the currency notes and by feeling their texture anyone with average intelligence could have suspected that they were counterfeit currency notes. At para No.18 of its judgment, the learned trial Court stated that from the evidence of PW.1 it was clearly seen that with average intelligence PW.1 suspected the genuineness of the currency notes. That by touching the currency notes and by feeling their texture anyone with average intelligence could have suspected that they were counterfeit currency notes. It was in the light of that evidence and further in the light of expert’s opinion that MO.1 was counterfeit currency notes, the revision petitioner was found guilty. Section 489-C I.P.C. requires proof of possession and further requires evidence that the person in possession has either knowledge that it was counterfeit currency notes or has a reason to believe that they are counterfeit currency notes. It further requires proof that possession of such currency notes should be with an intention to use them as a genuine. Only when these ingredients are proved by evidence the offence can be said to have been established. Section 28 of Indian Penal Code reads: “28. “Counterfeit”:- A person is said to “Counterfeit” who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced. Explanation 1:- It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact. Explanation 2:- When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practiced.” By the evidence of PW.1 prior possession of MO.1 by accused was brought on record. By the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P.23 forensic report it was found that by the very appearance and by their texture one could duly notice that MO.1 was counterfeit currency notes. This aspect could go to show that this revision petitioner as natural prudent man could also have noticed that they were not genuine but counterfeit. Despite such features on currency notes which should have furnished a reason to believe to the accused that they were not genuine he still passed on such currency notes and thereby disclosed that his intention was to use such currency notes as genuine. Despite such features on currency notes which should have furnished a reason to believe to the accused that they were not genuine he still passed on such currency notes and thereby disclosed that his intention was to use such currency notes as genuine. To the appreciation of trial Court as well as the appellate Court the above evidence satisfied all the ingredients of Section 489-C I.P.C. Be it noted, the punishment prescribed under Section 489-C I.P.C. is imprisonment which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both. As against that, use of counterfeit currency notes covered by Section 489-B I.P.C. is graver in nature as it provided for punishment with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and the offender shall also be liable to pay fine. 15. I have gone through the charge framed against the revision petitioner. It shows that he was informed that prior to 17.06.2005 he was in possession of counterfeit currency notes and it was for that only he was prosecuted. It is true that MO.1 counterfeit currency notes were not seized from the physical possession of this revision petitioner, but they were collected from PW.1. Instead of charging him for an offence under Section 489-B I.P.C. he was charged under Section 489-C I.P.C. The charge was clear and was unmistakable as it informed the revision petitioner that he was prosecuted for holding possession of these currency notes earlier to the time in which he handed over them to PW.1. It is in these circumstances, though technically the argument of the learned counsel for revision petitioner appears correct that Section 489-C I.P.C. was not the appropriate Section, yet what was proved and as pointed out by the learned appellate Court, it was a case of Section 489-B I.P.C. Since the prosecution was for lesser offence, it went to the benefit of the revision petitioner. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel cannot be used to any further in defence of the case. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is negatived. 16. As per Ex.P.1 written information, MO.1 was handed over by accused to PW.1 on 10.06.2005, but written information was lodged seven days thereafter on 17.06.2005. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel cannot be used to any further in defence of the case. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is negatived. 16. As per Ex.P.1 written information, MO.1 was handed over by accused to PW.1 on 10.06.2005, but written information was lodged seven days thereafter on 17.06.2005. Thus, there is delay in lodging F.I.R. PW.1 during his evidence explained this stating that after he received this cash he had to go to Rajahmundry for medical check up and therefore, he kept the cash in the cash box and went to the hospital and returned back only five or six days thereafter. While cross-examining this witness defence did not challenge either the sickness of PW.1 or PW.1 leaving the town and going to Rajahmundry and obtaining treatment. What all that was asked during cross-examination was that he did not file document concerning his medical checkup. Thus, the substance of what was stated to by PW.1 was not denied by the accused. When PW.1 was in need of medical check up and when he left the town and returned back a week days later that serves proper explanation for the delay in lodging F.I.R. Moreover there is no argument of any embellishments occurring in this gap of time. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner about delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be considered. 17. According to PW.1, he obtained opinion from the bank officers. Prosecution did not examine them. It is this non-examination of bank officers that is argued as one of the lapses. Learned trial Court explained it saying that what all the bank officers told PW.1 was that they were also suspicious about the genuineness of MO.1 and since there was a scientific report in Ex.P.23 saying that MO.1 was counterfeit that obviated the need to examine the bank officers and therefore, failure to examine bank officers could not damage the case of prosecution. This observation is quite logical and reasonable in the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, there is no need to disturb that. 18. That from the evidence of PW.1 it was gathered by the defence that during the absence of PW.1 in the town, his son transacted with business. However, it was never suggested to PW.1 that his son disturbed the money in the cash box that was given by accused to PW.1. Therefore, there is no need to disturb that. 18. That from the evidence of PW.1 it was gathered by the defence that during the absence of PW.1 in the town, his son transacted with business. However, it was never suggested to PW.1 that his son disturbed the money in the cash box that was given by accused to PW.1. As long as such suggestion was not given it should be accepted that the money given by accused remained in-tact in the cash box. Without suggesting necessary facts an accused cannot claim that from the facts Courts should doubt the evidence. The benefit of doubt shall emanate from the facts. According to PW.1, the cash remained in-tact. As long as that was not further probed during cross-examination, the various possibilities that could be there cannot be considered as facts giving rise to reasonable doubt. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is negatived. 19. Having considered the entire material on record and the judgments of the Courts below, this Court finds no error in appreciation of evidence and no error in appreciation of law. 20. Coming to the punishment handed down by the Courts below, learned counsel submits that the offence pertains to the year 2005, which is 18 years ago and this is the first offence and the revision petitioner had no criminal history and he had already spent 45 days in jail and therefore, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the extent the revision petitioner underwent. On perusal of the record, one would find that during his cross-examination PW.1 stated that the father of the revision petitioner is a reputed man in the town and that he has business dealings with the revision petitioner for ten years without any problems. It was the evidence of PW.1 that there were no disputes between him and the accused and defence has not contended anything contrary to it. It is in the context of this evidence and the fact that the revision petitioner is first offender, this Court is inclined to alter the nature of the sentence. The trial was conducted by learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge. Section 28(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers an Assistant Sessions Judge to inflict any sentence authorized by law except a sentence of death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding ten years. The trial was conducted by learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge. Section 28(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers an Assistant Sessions Judge to inflict any sentence authorized by law except a sentence of death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding ten years. Thus, the power to impose fine is unlimited. Section 489-C I.P.C. empowers the Court to punish the guilty with imprisonment or fine or both. The amount of fine is unlimited as per the penal provision. In terms of Section 401 read with Section 386(b)(iii) Cr.P.C., revisional Court could alter the nature and extent of the sentence, but while doing so it shall not enhance the same. It is settled principle of law that enhancement of fine by altering sentence of imprisonment does not amount to enhancement of sentence. 21. In the light of the facts and the law available, this Court is of the opinion that at this distance of time from the time of the alleged offence it is found more appropriate to alter the sentence imposed by the Courts below. 22. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part modifying the judgment dated 15.12.2008 of learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2008 and the judgment dated 28.03.2008 of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in Sessions Case No.247 of 2007. While confirming the guilt and conviction, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of three years imposed against the petitioner, for the offence under Section 489-C I.P.C. is substituted by a fine of Rs.30,000/- with default sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for six (6) months. The fine of Rs.10,000/- inflicted by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is retained. Rs.30,000/- fine now imposed is in addition to the fine that was already imposed. The revision petitioner shall pay the same before the trial Court within ten (10) days from the date of this order, failing which the trial Court shall take steps to execute the sentence. 23. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the Court below and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner in Sessions Case No.247 of 2007, dated 28.03.2008, and to report compliance to this Court. 23. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the Court below and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner in Sessions Case No.247 of 2007, dated 28.03.2008, and to report compliance to this Court. Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this order along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 14.03.2023. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.