JUDGMENT : V. SRINIVAS, J. 1. Assailing the common judgment dated 26.09.2011 in Crl.A.Nos.9 and 11 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused Nos.1, 5, 6 and 8 by the judgment dated 18.12.2008 in S.C.Nos.368 of 2007 and 130 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge at Eluru, for the charge under Section 489(C) of INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 5 and 8 filed the Criminal Revision Case No.2012 of 2011 as well petitioner/accused No.6 filed the Criminal Revision Case No.2014 of 2011 under Section 397 r/w.401 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 respectively. 2. These revision cases were admitted on 28.09.2011 and the sentence imposed against the petitioners was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.3005 and 3008 of 2011, respectively. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i) On 01.09.2000 at about 07.30 p.m., P.W.1, who is an agricultural coolie presented a fake Rs.100/- currency note in the provisions store of P.W.3 and then P.W.3 questioned P.W.1 about the same. On the same day, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before I Town Police Station, Eluru and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.197 of 2000 under Section 498(A)(B) of IPC and investigated into. ii) Then P.W.14 seized two fake Rs.100/- denomination notes from P.W.1 under the cover of mediators report.During the course of investigation, on 02.09.2000 at about 10.00 p.m., police arrested the accused No.1 and recovered four Rs.500/- denomination fake currency notes and five Rs.100/- denomination fake currency notes under the cover of Ex.P.4 mediators report. On the same day at about 11.30 p.m., police arrested accused Nos.2 and 3 at Pedana and seized thirteen Rs.500/- denomination fake currency notes, five Rs.100/- denomination fake currency note from accused No.3 under the cover of Ex.P.5 mediators report. On the same day at about 11.30 p.m., police arrested accused Nos.2 and 3 at Pedana and seized thirteen Rs.500/- denomination fake currency notes, five Rs.100/- denomination fake currency note from accused No.3 under the cover of Ex.P.5 mediators report. iii) In pursuance of information given by the accused Nso.2 and 3, on the intervening night of 2/3.09.2000 at about 01.30 a.m., police conducted raid on the house of accused No.4 at Poranki, Krishna District, seized ten Rs.500/- denomination fake currency notes and ten Rs.100/- denomination fake currency notes from accused No.4 and also seized seven Rs.500/- denomination fake currency notes and six Rs.100/- denomination fake currency notes from accused No.5 under the cover of Ex.P.6 mediators report. iv) On the information given by accused Nos.1 to 5, police conducted raid in the Arimboor House D.No.1/2-3-2, Mangalam Street, Wadakamchery village, Triruchur District, Kerala State and found accused Nos.6 and 8, seized seven bundles of Rs.500/- denominates fake currency notes, computers, scanners, printing material etc. under the cover of Ex.P.7 mediators report, they confessed that accused No.7 is the master mind behind the preparation of counterfeit currency notes and he (A.7) had taken fake currency notes worth of Rs.42,27,000/- to Vijayawada. v) On that, on 06.09.2000 at about 08.00 a.m., police conducted raid on Room No.201 of Sangeetha Lodge, Vijayawada, arrested Accused No.7, seized counterfeit currency note bundles worth of Rs.41,27,000/- under the cover of Ex.P.8 mediators report. vi) Accused Nos.6 and 8 are close associates of accused No.7 and they entered into an understanding with accused Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to supply counterfeit currency notes for exchange with genuine notes. In pursuance of the same, accused No.7 with the help of accused No.6 and 8 produced the counterfeit currency notes and supplied to accused Nos.1 to 5 and 10 for the purpose of circulation. 4. In pursuance of the same, accused No.7 with the help of accused No.6 and 8 produced the counterfeit currency notes and supplied to accused Nos.1 to 5 and 10 for the purpose of circulation. 4. After completion of investigation, P.W.16-S.I. of Police laid charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance vide P.R.C.No.37 of 2002 on the file of Court of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru and committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as S.C.No.368 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge at Eluru against accused Nos.1 to 5, 7 to 10, since accused No.6 had absconded, the case against him was separated and numbered as S.C.No.130 of 2008, after full- fledged trial, found the accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are guilty of the charge under Section 489(C) of IPC, vide judgment dated 22.12.2008, sentenced accused No.2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months, and also sentenced accused Nos.1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months. However, found the accused Nos.9 and 10 are acquitted for the said charge. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 5, 8 and 6 preferred appeals, vide Crl.A.No.9 and 11 of 2009 respectively, before the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the same were dismissed, vide common judgment dated 26.09.2011, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused Nos.1, 5, 8 and 6. 6. Against the said common judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision cases were preferred by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 5, 8 and 6, respectively. 7. Heard Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel representing Sri Suryam Gannavarapu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V.Venkata Subbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 5, 8 and 6 submits that the prosecution failed to establish the charge leveled against the accused; that no independent witness deposed against the accused; that the testimony of P.W.15 cannot be relied upon to convict the accused; that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged seizure of counterfeit currency from the possession of the accused; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioners and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of prosecution witnesses categorically proved the charge leveled against the petitioners; that the accused were found in possession of huge counterfeit currency; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioner for the said charge; that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by examining P.Ws.1 to 16 and producing Exs.P.1 to P.29 and M.Os.1 to 52, thereby, the present revision cases have no merits. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the prosecution is not able to establish the charge leveled against them beyond all doubt, thereby, they are entitled for acquittal. 12. As per the prosecution version, P.W.1, who is an innocent labourer and worked in the fields of accused No.1, who secured some counterfeit currency from accused Nos.6 to 8, was distributed two Rs.100/- notes by accused No.1m towards coolie amount. In turn, P.W.1 came to the provisions shop of P.W.3 to purchase the provisions by using the said currency, then P.W.3 noticed the same and raised an objection. P.Ws.2 and 4, who are neighbours of P.W.3 also noticed the same. On that P.W.1, submitted Ex.P.20 report to the police and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.197 of 2000 by P.W.14 under Sections 489(A)(B) and (C) of IPC. 13. P.Ws.2 and 4, who are neighbours of P.W.3 also noticed the same. On that P.W.1, submitted Ex.P.20 report to the police and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.197 of 2000 by P.W.14 under Sections 489(A)(B) and (C) of IPC. 13. Then P.W.14 along with P.W.5 and L.W.12-Dasarapu Siva Nagendra Rao visited the house of accused No.1 and recovered M.O.17 four Rs.500/- denomination counterfeit currency notes and M.O.18 five Rs.100/- denomination counterfeit currency notes under the cover of Ex.P.4 mediators report. Thereafter, they went to the house of accused No.2 at Poranki village and recovered M.Os.19 and 20 counterfeit currency under the cover of Ex.P.5 mediators report. Then P.W.14 arrested accused No.4 in the presence of P.W.5 and recovered M.Os.23 and 24 under the cover of Ex.P.6 mediators report as well interrogated accused No.5 and recovered M.Os.25 and 26 from accused No.5 under the cover of Ex.P.6 mediators report. 14. On perusal of testimony of P.W.1, he did not support the prosecution version, however, he testified that he received two Rs.100/- notes towards his coolie and he purchased provisions somewhere in Atilli or Eluru and police caught him when shop owner reported to the police. Then he stated before the police that he received two Rs.100/- notes from the owner of the land where he worked in Kankatala village. He identified his signatures on Ex.P.20 report. Thereby, it is categorical from the testimony of P.W.1 that he worked in the fields of farmers in Kankalta village and received two Rs.100/- counterfeit currency notes. 15. P.W.3 owner of the shop, P.Ws.2 and 4 neighbours of P.W.3 testified that when P.W.1 tendered counterfeit currency notes after purchasing the provisions in the shop of P.W.3, they came to know that P.W.1 gave a report to police and they identified P.W.1. Even as per the testimony of P.W.14, P.W.1 submitted Ex.P.20 report to him and he seized M.O.16 counterfeit currency under the cover of Ex.P.3 mediators report. Thereby, in view of the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 as well PW.14, it is categorical that M.O.16 was recovered from P.W.1, which was secured by him from landlord of Kankatala village towards coolie amount. 16. It is also testimony of P.W.14 that in the presence of mediators, he along with P.W.1 went to the house of accused No.1 and arrested him by recovering M.Os.17 and 18 under the cover of Ex.P.4 mediators report. 16. It is also testimony of P.W.14 that in the presence of mediators, he along with P.W.1 went to the house of accused No.1 and arrested him by recovering M.Os.17 and 18 under the cover of Ex.P.4 mediators report. Accused No.1 led them to the house of accused Nos.2 and 3, they found accused Nos.2 and 3 and he arrested them, seized M.Os.19 and 20 from accused No.2 and M.Os.21 and 22 from accused No.3 under the cover of Ex.P.5. Thereafter, on 03.09.2000 at about 01.30 a.m., P.W.14 along with P.W.5 and another mediator went to Poranki Village and arrested accused Nos.4 and 5 near Sivalayam under the cover of Ex.P.6 mediators report. Even as per the testimony of P.W.5, he is acted as mediator in this case and signed in four reports. 17. It is the contention of the accused that P.W.5 is a stock mediator, thereby, his testimony cannot be taken into consideration. In view of the nature of the offence and considering the recovery made by the investigating agency, this said contention has no legs to stand. 18. Furthermore, a special investigation team constituted by Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct further investigation in this crime. Thereby, on 04.09.2000, P.W.15 at about 11.00 p.m., along with P.Ws.6 and 7 mediators visited Arimboor House bearing No.1-232 of Mangalam Street, Wadakamchery village in Triruchur District, arrested accused Nos.6 and 8 and they confessed that accused No.6 along with accused No.7 made a plan to prepare counterfeit currency with the help of computers, printer and scanner and accused No.7 had taken Rs.500/- denomination bundles worth of Rs.45,00,000/- to Vijayawada for exchange of the same with genuine currency. They also seized M.O.27-seven bundles of Rs.500/- denomination counterfeit currency and M.Os.28 to 52-computer material, printer, scanner, and other printing material from the said house under the cover of Ex.P.7 mediators report. 19. P.W.15 further testified that on 06.09.2000 in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9 as well accused No.6 and 8 arrested accused No.7 at Room No.201 of Sangeetha Lodge, Bandar Road Vijayawada and seized Rs.41,27,000/- of counterfeit currency under the cover of Ex.P.8. He also seized Exs.P.23 to P.25 receipts from receptionist and Ex.P.26 Register of Sangeetha Lodge, where the entries pertain to the accused No.7 were made. 20. He also seized Exs.P.23 to P.25 receipts from receptionist and Ex.P.26 Register of Sangeetha Lodge, where the entries pertain to the accused No.7 were made. 20. Even P.Ws.6 and 7 were not fully supported the prosecution version, they admitted that Ex.P.7 is in the handwriting of P.W.6 and about visiting of house at Kerala.Thereby, it is categorical that P.W.15 conducted raid in the house at Kerala. Nothing incriminating was elicited during cross examination of P.W.15 to disbelieve his testimony as well material seized by him, thereby, this Court has no reason to discard the consistent testimony of P.W.15. Furthermore, as per the Ex.P.28 report from Indian Reserve Bank Printing Press, Mysuru, the currency sent to them is a fake currency and hence not legal tender. Moreover, as per Ex.P.29 report from the Director of Forensic Laboratory Hyderabad, they found the currency received by them were fake currency notes. It is the not the case of the petitioners that police secured such huge quantity of fake currency to foist a false case against them. 21. Having regard to the above, the testimony of prosecution witnesses coupled with material produced before the Trial Court categorically proved the charge leveled against the petitioners beyond all doubt. Furthermore, it is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand , (2004) 7 SCC 659 , that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court.” 22. By taking into consideration of material available on record, the trial Court came to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section489(C) of IPC, which was affirmed by the first Appellate Court. 23. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Courts below, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses and there is no material to disbelieve the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.29. 24. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses and there is no material to disbelieve the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.29. 24. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 5, 6 and 8 were found in possession of counterfeit currency, which is used for circulation among the public and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Courts below in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said charges. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the charge under Section 489(C) of IPC. 25. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the incident was occurred on 01.09.2000 and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioners by the Courts below that the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 5, 6 and 8 are age old persons, accused No.6 undergone heart surgery and accused No.8 undergone brain surgery and completely bedridden, accused Nos.1 and 5 already undergone more than four months imprisonment, accused No.6 undergone more than eight months imprisonment and accused No.8 undergone more than seven months imprisonment and that Accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 are died and accused No.2 already completed the sentence of imprisonment. He brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi) , AIR 1977 SC 892 , wherein the APEX Court considered the facts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellate from two (2) months to one month rigorous imprisonment. 26. He also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi , AIR 1973 SC 2127 wherein also the APEX Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone, but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-. 27. 26. He also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi , AIR 1973 SC 2127 wherein also the APEX Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone, but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-. 27. As well in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana , 2019 (3) Crimes 89 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2 that “they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.” 28. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said to be happened on 01.09.2000 and by this time more than twenty four (24) years have already been lapsed. Furthermore, as per nominal rolls submitted by the prosecution, the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 5, 8 and 6 already undergone four months twenty days, four months eight days, seven months twenty seven day and eight months fifteen days, respectively. 29. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thisCourt is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 5, 8 and 6 is modified to that of already undergone by them instead of three (3) years rigorous imprisonment for the charge under Section 489(C) of IPC. 30. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed in part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 5, 8 and 6 to that of already undergone by them instead of three (3) years rigorous imprisonment for the charge under Section 489(C) of IPC. The rest of the common judgment dated 26.11.2011 in Crl.A.Nos.9 and 11 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, shall stands confirmed. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.