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. 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 v