Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 20.07.2026 Date of uploading : 27.07.2026 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI **** CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 26, 45 and 46 of 2019 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 26 of 2019 Between: 1. M.SATYANARAYA, RAMANNAPALEM VILLAGHE, PENUGONDLA MANDAL, W.G. DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, High court of Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 45/2019 Between: 1. D.KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. MANSON, SIDDANTAM VILLAGE, PENUGONDA MANDAL, W.G.DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, High Court of A.P. Amaravathi, Through S.I. of Police, Palkol Town Police Station. ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 46/2019 Between: 1. K. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HINDU, CHERUKUWADA, PENUGONDA MANDAL, W.G. DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi, through S.I. of Police, Palakol Town Police Station, ...RESPONDENT 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No 2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the Fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 * THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO + CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 26, 45 and 46 of 2026 % 20.07.2026 # CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 26 of 2019 Between: 1. M.SATYANARAYA, RAMANNAPALEM VILLAGHE, PENUGONDLA MANDAL, W.G. DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, High court of Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 45/2019 Between: 1. D.KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. MANSON, SIDDANTAM VILLAGE, PENUGONDA MANDAL, W.G.DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, High Court of A.P. Amaravathi, Through S.I. of Police, Palkol Town Police Station. ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 46/2019 Between: 1. K. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HINDU, CHERUKUWADA, PENUGONDA MANDAL, W.G. DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 1. STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi, through S.I. of Police, Palakol Town Police Station, ...RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P. Durga Prasad and Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad ^Counsel for the Respondents: 1. P.Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2002) 6 SCC 650 2. AIR 1993 SC 1126 3. AIR 2002 SC 2229 4. (2001) 9 SCC 642 5. (1986) 4 SCC 746 6. (2005) 1 SCC 237 7. (1979) 4 SCC 723 8. 1987 SCC Online Cal 114 9. 2019 SCC OnLine Tri 200 10. Crl.R.C.Nos.1959 of 2026 and 201 of 2007 11. Crl.A.No.625 of 2017 dated 21.01.2025 12. 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 12024 13. Crl.A.No(s).2618 of 2014 dated 11.07.2024 14. Crl.A.No.147 of 2021 15. Crl.A.No.9671 of 2023 16. 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 3965 17. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3242 18. (1977) 3 SCC 287 19. (2012) 2 SCC 648 20. (2017) 4 SCC 546 21. (2008) 7 SCC 550 22. (1991) 3 SCC 471 23. (2012) 4 SCC 257 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 24. Air 1979 SC 1360 25. 2000(1) BLJR 37 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 26, 45 and 46 of 2019 COMMON ORDER: The three Criminal Revision Cases are heard together and disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of a common Sessions Case, though the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 preferred separate criminal appeals before the Appellate Court and have filed separate revision cases before this Court, the issues or considerations involved are common and arise out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence. 2. Criminal Revision Case Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 are filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 challenging the common judgment dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsapur, in Crl.A.Nos.65 to 67 of 2016, whereby the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment dated 03.03.2016 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, in S.C.No.406 of 2012, convicting the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 489- C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C’) and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 paid the fine amount at the time of preferring the appeals before the appellate Court. They had also undergone remand for periods of 87, 85 and 84 days, respectively. 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 3. Sri P. Durga Prasad and Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submit that although 44, 40, and 40 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were allegedly seized from the possession of Accused Nos.1, 2, and 3, respectively, only three currency notes were sent for forensic examination and were opined to be counterfeit. It is contended that, in the absence of forensic examination of all the seized currency notes and proper identification of the examined notes in Ex.P-5, the expert's report and the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be safely relied upon. Hence, urged to allow criminal revision cases. 4. Alternatively, the learned Counsels submit that the Petitioners have already undergone 87, 85 and 84 days respectively in judicial custody. It is further submitted that no similar adverse antecedents are reported against any of the Petitioners. Accused No.1 has undergone major hip surgery and is presently unable to move without assistance. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are also suffering from serious health ailments, rendering them incapable of attending to their daily avocations. They are stated to have aged parents, wives and children dependent upon them. 5. The learned Counsels further voluntarily submit that, as a measure of penance, the Petitioners are willing to pay an additional fine of Rs.75,000/- each. It is contended that Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ confers discretion upon the Court to impose imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or fine, or both. It is also submitted that the alleged offence took place in 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 the year 2011 and nearly fifteen years have elapsed since then. The Petitioners have undergone the ordeal of criminal proceedings for all these years, and their right to a speedy trial, which encompasses the expeditious disposal of revision proceedings as well, has been substantially frustrated. In these circumstances, the learned counsel pray that this Court may take a lenient view and pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice by considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances. 6. On the other hand, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of any relief in these Criminal Revision Cases. She submits that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that the learned Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the Petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 489-C of ‘the I.P.C’. It is contended that there are no grounds, much less valid grounds, to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 7. It is further submitted that the contention of the Petitioners that only one currency note from each accused was sent for forensic examination, instead of all the seized currency notes, is devoid of merit. According to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioners, as Ex.P-5, the Forensic Science Laboratory report, categorically certifies that the currency notes examined were counterfeit. It is contended that the 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 evidence on record sufficiently establishes that the Petitioners were found in conscious possession of counterfeit currency notes, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C’. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Cases. 8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 9. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 10. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.Nos.65 to 67 of 2017 dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Narsapur, are correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 11. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 were charged with the offence punishable under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.’ It is the prosecution case that they were found in conscious possession of 44, 40 and 40 currency notes, respectively, of Rs.500/- denomination, which were alleged to be counterfeit. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 and M.O.Nos.1 to 11. 12. The prosecution witnesses, particularly the mediator and the investigating officer, consistently deposed that the Petitioners were found in conscious possession of the counterfeit currency notes. Accepting the 10 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Petitioners as stated above. The learned Appellate Court, upon a re-appreciation of the evidence and after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, found no infirmity in the findings of the Trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeals. 13. This Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot re-appreciate the evidence as if sitting in appeal, unless the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or result in a miscarriage of justice. 14. In adjudicating a Criminal Revision assailing concurrent findings of conviction, it is jurisprudentially imperative to advert to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar1, wherein the Court, at Paragraph No.13, emphatically delineated the contours of revisional jurisdiction. It was observed that in the absence of demonstrable legal infirmity in the procedural framework or in the conduct of the trial, the High Court is bereft of justification to exercise its revisional powers. The Hon’ble Apex Court underscored that revisional authority is not a forum for re- appreciation or re-evaluation of evidence with a view to supplant the findings of the Trial Court. Only where there exists manifest illegality or palpable perversity culminating in grave miscarriage of justice, can the extraordinary 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 jurisdiction under revision be legitimately invoked, otherwise, judicial restraint must prevail. 15. In the context of revisional scrutiny over concurrent findings of conviction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale 2, at Paragraph No.2, has categorically circumscribed the ambit of interference by the High Court. The Court observed that ordinarily it is impermissible for the revisional Court to unsettle concurrent determinations of fact rendered by the subordinate Courts, particularly by embarking upon a fresh re-appreciation of evidence. The revisional jurisdiction, being supervisory in nature, is not intended to function as a second appellate forum, its invocation is justified only where glaring illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice is manifest. Absent such exceptional circumstances, judicial discipline mandates deference to the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 16. In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while elaborating upon the ambit of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ lucidly articulated that such power is inherently discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised judiciously, never arbitrarily. Judicial discretion, as the Court emphasized, must be “informed by tradition, methodized by analogy and disciplined by system,” thereby confining its invocation to circumstances of glaring procedural defects, manifest errors of law, or flagrant miscarriage of justice. The revisional forum is not an 2AIR 1993 SC 1126 3AIR 2002 SC 2229 12 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 appellate tribunal for re-scrutiny of evidence or substitution of possible alternative views, its application is restrictive, reserved for exceptional situations where correction of illegality or prevention of gross injustice is imperative. The Court further clarified that while the High Court retains supervisory authority over subordinate courts, both administratively and judicially, the jurisdictional sweep under Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ remains circumscribed. In the facts under consideration, the High Court was held to have transgressed its revisional limits by setting aside an acquittal and directing a fresh judgment, which constituted a significant departure from the normal course of revisional adjudication. Therefore, this Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence of the prosecution. 17. It is pertinent to note that, out of the 44 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination allegedly seized from the possession of Accused No.1 and 40 currency notes of the same denomination allegedly seized from the possession of each of Accused Nos.2 and 3, only one currency note from the possession of each accused was sent for forensic examination. The Forensic Science Laboratory certified that those three currency notes were counterfeit. However, the remaining seized currency notes were not subjected to forensic analysis. Nothing prevented the prosecution from sending all the seized currency notes for forensic examination to ascertain whether each of them was counterfeit. The failure to do so assumes significance while determining 13 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 whether the prosecution has established that all the seized currency notes were, in fact, counterfeit. 18. Section 28 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ says that a person is said to “counterfeit” who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced. 19. Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ (now substantially reenacted under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) punishes possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. For better appreciation of the case Section 489 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is extracted as under: “489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency- note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 20. On a plain reading of it, the essential ingredients of Section 489C ‘the I.P.C.,’ are as follows: (i) The note is forged or counterfeit: The currency or bank note recovered must be proved to be counterfeit through admissible evidence, ordinarily by expert examination. (ii) Possession by the accused: The accused must be in conscious and exclusive or joint possession of the counterfeit currency. (iii) Knowledge or reason to believe: The accused knew, or had reason to believe, that the notes were forged or counterfeit. Mere 14 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 possession is insufficient unless this mental element (mens rea) is established. (iv) Intention to use the notes as genuine or that they may be used as genuine: The prosecution must prove that the accused intended to pass the counterfeit notes as genuine or intended that they be so used. Thus, the prosecution must establish both possession and the requisite mens rea (knowledge and intention). Mere recovery of counterfeit notes does not automatically attract Section 489C of ‘the IPC.’ 21. In this context, it is profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh 4, a leading authority on Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ wherein it is held that mere possession of counterfeit currency is not enough; the prosecution must prove that the accused knew or had reason to believe the notes were counterfeit and intended to use them as genuine. In the absence of proof of mens rea, conviction under Sections 489B and 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ cannot be sustained. It is held at paragraph Nos.7 and 8, as under: “7. Sections 489-A to 489-E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. The object of the legislature in enacting these provisions is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency notes and banknotes. The currency notes are, in spite of growing accustomedness to the credit card system, still the backbone of the commercial transactions by the multitudes in our country. But these provisions are not meant to punish unwary possessors or users. 8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C is “knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or banknotes are forged or counterfeit”. Without the aforementioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or 4 (2001) 9 SCC 642 15 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489-B IPC. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489-C in the absence of the mens rea, noted above. No material is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant had the requisite mens rea. The High Court, however, completely missed this aspect. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 7 that they were able to make out that the currency note alleged to have been given to PW 4 was fake, “presumed” such a mens rea. On the date of the incident the appellant was said to be an eighteen-year-old student. On the facts of this case the presumption drawn by the trial court is not warranted under Section 4 of the Evidence Act. Further it is also not shown that any specific question with regard to the currency notes being fake or counterfeit was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On these facts, we have no option but to hold that the charges framed under Sections 489-B and 489-C are not proved. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC and acquit him of the said charges (see: M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 723 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 170 : AIR 1979 SC 1705] ).” 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese5, at paragraph Nos.7 and 8, held that the expression “currency note or bank note” is broad enough to include foreign currency as well. Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is therefore not confined to Indian currency alone. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Hashim v. State of T.N6, explained the distinction between Sections 489B and 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ thus: Section 489B deals with using or trafficking in counterfeit currency. Section 489C deals with possession coupled with knowledge and intention. Mens rea is indispensable under both provisions. At paragraph Nos.49 and 51, it is held as under: “49. Section 489-C deals with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeited currency 5 (1986) 4 SCC 746 6 (2005) 1 SCC 237 16 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 notes or banknotes punishable. Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeited notes are necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Sections 489-C and 489-D. As was observed by this Court in State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese [(1986) 4 SCC 746 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 3 : AIR 1987 SC 33] the expression “currency notes” is large and wide enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of any country. Section 489-C is not restricted to Indian currency note alone but it includes the dollar also and it applies to American dollar bills. 51. Section 28 defines the word “counterfeiting” in very wide terms. The main ingredients of counterfeiting as laid down in Section 28 are: (1) causing one thing to resemble another thing; (2) intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception; or (3) knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised. Thus, if one thing is made to resemble another thing and the intention is that by such resemblance deception would be practised or even if there is no intention but it is known to be likely that the resemblance is such that deception will thereby be practised, there is counterfeiting. (See State of U.P. v. Hafiz Mohd. Ismail [AIR 1960 SC 669 : 1960 Cri LJ 1017 : (1960) 2 SCR 911] .” 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka7, held that knowledge that the notes are counterfeit is an essential ingredient; mere recovery without proof of knowledge or intention is insufficient for conviction. This principle continues to guide courts considering Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.’ It is held at para No.1 as under: “1. S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.— The appellant has been convicted in this appeal under Sections 489-B and 489-C and has been sentenced to RI for one year and to RI for six months respectively and fine of Rs 500. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that it is true that the appellant was found in possession of a counterfeit two rupee note and the accused handed over the note to a friend to purchase a ticket for a circus show. The booking clerk on seeing the note got suspicious. He immediately informed the Sub-Inspector of Police and on search of the Appellant 99 two rupee notes were recovered. The appellant in his statement under Section 342 stated that two days ago he sold three quintals of tamarind fruits to a person whom he did not know and that person gave him a sum of Rs 390. These currency notes have been given to him by the purchaser. He also said that he did not know that these currency notes were counterfeit and he came to know of it for the first time when he was interrogated by the police. There is no evidence of any witness to show that the counterfeit notes were of such a nature or description that a mere look at them would convince any person of average intelligence that it was a counterfeit note. Nor was any such question put to the accused under Section 342 CrPC. The High Court has affirmed the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that in his statement under Section 342 made before the committing Court the accused has made a statement different from that made in the Sessions Court and 7 (1979) 4 SCC 723 17 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 therefore the appellant had reason to believe that notes in his possession were counterfeit notes. Here the High Court is not correct because even in the statement before the committing Court in Ex. P-13 which appears at p. 154 of the paper-book, the appellant has stuck to the same statement which he made before the Sessions Court that he had sold three quintals of tamarind fruits and from the purchaser he received a sum of Rs 390 in two rupee notes. We are not able to find any inconsistency between the answer given by the accused in his statement under Section 342 before the Sessions Judge and that before the Committing Court specially on the point that the appellant had the knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit. Mr Nettar submitted that once the appellant is found in possession of counterfeit notes, he must be presumed to know that the notes are counterfeit. If the notes were of such a nature that mere look at them would convince anybody that it was counterfeit such a presumption could reasonably be drawn. But the difficulty is that the prosecution has not put any specific question to the appellant in order to find out whether the accused knew that the notes were of such a nature. No such evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the nature of the notes also. In these circumstances, it is impossible for us to sustain the conviction of the appellant. For these reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed, conviction and sentences passed on the appellant are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.” 25. In Jiban Sasmal v. State of West Bengal8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.9 held as under: “9. Although it is in evidence led on behalf of the prosecution that five currency notes were recovered from the possession of the present appellant but mere possession of those counterfeit currency notes will not be sufficient to uphold the charge framed against the appellant under s. 489C and, as such, the conviction thereunder cannot be sustained inasmuch as from a plain reading of the said Section, it is clear that mere possession of any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be so will not be sufficient inasmuch as the Section itself provides that possession occupied with intention to use the same as genuine is required to be satisfied before a conviction can be upheld under s. 489C. In the charge framed against the appellant under the said section, it has been stated that under s. 489C, he had in his possession five currency notes of ten rupee denomination, full particulars whereof had been given, together with the charge that he intended to use the same as genuine, whereas from an analysis of the evidence led for and on behalf of the prosecution, it is clear that it does not support such charge inasmuch as all the five counterfeit currency notes were no doubt found in his possession but there is no evidence that he intended to use the same as genuine.” 26. The High Court of Tripura in Bishu Ranjan Das v. State of Tripura9, at paragraph No.25, held as under: 8 1987 SCC OnLine Cal 114 9 2019 SCC OnLine Tri 200 18 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 “25. It is apparent from the evidence that the seized counterfeit currencies were not sealed within a packet in presence of witnesses and till this packet was broken by the State Forensic Science Laboratory [SFSL], nobody had access to those notes. The integrity of the seized sample in such cases is highly important as the prosecution has to prove the chain of custody to establish that the integrity of the sample was never compromised. But here, there is no evidence in relation to the chain of custody or the sampling in order to preserve the integrity of the seized materials. There is no evidence except the possession of the so called ‘counterfeit currencies’. Even there is no evidence of mens rea. In absence the evidence of mere possession, cannot prove that offence punishable under Section 489C of the IPC has been committed.” 27. A learned single judge of this court in Perumandla Tirupathi Goud v. State of Andhra Pradesh10, at paragraph No.10, held by laying down the principles that section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ requires: a) conscious possession, b) knowledge or reason to believe that the notes are counterfeit, and c) intention to use them as genuine. This court discussed the distinction between Sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 489D of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and reiterated that possession coupled with knowledge is the gravamen of Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C’. Thus, it is held, “Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeit are necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.” 28. In Pasupula Ganesh v. State of Telangana 11, the High Court of Telangana at paragraph Nos.13 and 14 set aside convictions under Sections 489A, 489B and 489D of ‘the I.P.C.,’ but sustained conviction only under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ because possession of counterfeit notes was proved. The Court also reduced the sentence considering the circumstances of the case. It is held that failure to prove manufacture or circulation does not 10 Criminal Revision Case Nos.1959 of 2006 and 201 of 2007 11 Criminal Appeal No.625 of 2017, dated 21.01.2025 19 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 necessarily defeat a prosecution under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ where the ingredients of possession, knowledge and intention are established. 29. The Kerala High Court in Abdul Hakkim v. State of Kerala 12, at paragraph No.8 reiterated that mere recovery of counterfeit currency is insufficient; prosecution must prove knowledge and intention contemplated by Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ conviction cannot rest solely upon recovery. 30. The Madras High Court in K. Hashim supra held that possession alone is insufficient; prosecution must establish mens rea; surrounding circumstances may prove knowledge. These principles are repeatedly applied in appeals arising out of conviction under Sections 489B and 489C of ‘the I.P.C’. 31. Thus, in Umashankar supra it is held that mens rea is indispensable; mere possession is insufficient. In M. Mammutti supra, it is held that knowledge is an essential ingredient. In K. Hashim supra explains the distinction between Sections 489B and 489C. In Mathai Verghese supra it is held, “currency note or bank note” includes foreign currency”. 32. About counterfeit notes, it must be proved by admissible expert evidence. Possession must be conscious possession. Knowledge must be proved or inferred from reliable circumstances. About the intention, there must be intention to use the notes as genuine or permit their use. Mere recovery is 12 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 12024 20 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 not sufficient for conviction. In so far burden, entire burden remains on the prosecution. 33. On a careful analysis of Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and the rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the legal principles emerging from the case law are as follows: a) Mere possession does not constitute the offence; b) Conscious possession must be proved; c) Knowledge or reason to believe that the notes are counterfeit is mandatory; d) Intention to use them as genuine must also be established; e) Mens rea may be inferred from surrounding circumstances, but it cannot be presumed solely from recovery. 34. 34. In the instance case, one currency note allegedly seized from the possession of each of the accused was sent for forensic examination, and the Forensic Science Laboratory, under Ex. P-5, opined that those currency notes were counterfeit. The attending or surrounding circumstances of the case clearly prove that the Petitioners were not only in possession of the counterfeit currency notes but also they were aware of the currency notes and they intended to use them as genuine. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Petitioners were in conscious possession of counterfeit currency notes. Accordingly, the conviction of the Petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is liable to be confirmed. However, in the attending circumstances, the sentence imposed on the Petitioners requires re-consideration. 21 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 35. When a conviction under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is challenged in revision before the High Court (under Section 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ now Sections 438 and 442 of ‘the BNSS.,’ where applicable), the High Court ordinarily exercises restraint in interfering with the sentence. However, if the conviction is maintained, the sentence may be reduced where the interests of justice require so much. In revision, the High Court ordinarily does not reassess the sentence merely because another view is possible. Interference is generally warranted only where the sentence is illegal; sentencing discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or on irrelevant considerations; the sentence is manifestly excessive or grossly inadequate; or important mitigating circumstances have been ignored. 35. Although offences under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are economic offences affecting the integrity of the nation’s currency system and ordinarily warrant deterrent punishment, the provision prescribes no minimum sentence. Consequently, the Court is required to impose a punishment commensurate with the degree of culpability of the offender. Where the conviction is confined to mere possession of counterfeit currency with the requisite mens rea, without proof of trafficking, manufacture or circulation, and the offender is a first-time convict who has undergone substantial incarceration and faced prolonged criminal proceedings, the ends of justice may be adequately served by reducing the substantive sentence while maintaining the conviction, subject to appropriate fine. While dealing with the principles governing interference 22 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 with sentence, the High Court generally considers certain factors, which are enumerated as below: 37. Regarding nature of the offence, it must be seen that section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is an economic offence affecting public confidence in the currency system. Sentencing must reflect the seriousness of the offence. 38. Regarding no mandatory minimum sentence, section 489C of ‘the IPC.,’ prescribes imprisonment up to seven years, or fine, or both. Since there is no minimum prescribed punishment, the Court has discretion to tailor the sentence to the facts of the case. 39. About Mitigating circumstances, the Court may reduce the sentence where the accused is a first-time offender; there is no evidence of involvement in a larger counterfeit racket; only possession under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is proved, while charges under Sections 489A/489B of ‘the I.P.C.,’ fail; the accused has undergone substantial incarceration; the trial or appeal has remained pending for many years; the quantity and denomination of counterfeit notes are comparatively small. 40. In so far as proportionality is concerned, sentencing must be proportionate to the culpability of the offender and the gravity of the offence. Where the accused is only a possessor of counterfeit notes and not their manufacturer or trafficker, a lesser sentence may be justified. 23 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 41. In Mohammad Asif v. State of Karnataka13, at paragraph No.4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while maintaining the conviction under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, considering that the appellant was a vegetable vendor, had no previous criminal antecedents, and only the offence under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ survived. 42. In A. Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala14, at paragraph No.9 the Hon’ble Apex Court altered the conviction from Sections 489B and 489C to Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ alone and reduced the sentence from five years to two years’ imprisonment, emphasizing that the graver charge was not proved. 43. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mehmood Nagauri v. State of Madhya Pradesh 15, at paragraph No.13 while affirming the conviction under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, noting the absence of a statutory minimum sentence, the appellants’ lack of criminal antecedents, and the prolonged ordeal of criminal proceedings, while enhancing the fine. 44. A learned single judge of the Bombay High Court in Alladdin Jallauddin Shaikh v. State of Maharastra16, at paragraph No.7 held that recovery of counterfeit notes from a bag or pocket is not conclusive; 13 Criminal Appeal No(s).2618 of 2014 dated 11.07.2024 14 Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2021 15 Criminal Appeal No.9671 of 2023 16 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 3965 24 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 prosecution must establish conscious possession; knowledge may be inferred from: quantity, concealment, conduct of the accused, surrounding circumstances. 45. In Akil v. State (NCT of Delhi)17, at paragraph No.9 it is held that possession under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ means conscious possession; where the accused gives a plausible explanation regarding receipt of the currency and prosecution fails to establish knowledge, benefit of doubt should follow. 46. Regarding proportionality of sentence, in Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P 18 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that sentencing is an integral and significant stage of criminal justice. While determining the appropriate sentence, the Court must consider not only the nature and gravity of the offence but also the personal and social circumstances of the offender, including age, background, antecedents, conduct, and prospects of rehabilitation. The object of sentencing is to balance the reformative and deterrent principles of punishment by individualizing the sentence in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The hearing on the question of sentence enables both the prosecution and the accused to place relevant material before the Court to facilitate the imposition of a just, fair, and 17 2024 SCC ONLine Del 3242 18 (1977) 3 SCC 287 25 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 appropriate sentence. Thus, at paragrapah Nos.5, 6 and 16, it is held as under: 5. If every saint has a past, every sinner has a future, and it is the role of law to remind both of this. The Indian legal genius of old has made a healthy contribution to the word treasury of criminology. The drawback of our criminal process is that often they are built on the bricks of impressionist opinions and dated values, ignoring empirical studies and deeper researches. 6. India, like every other country, has its own crime complex and dilemma of punishment. Solutions to tangled social issues do not come like the crack of dawn but are the product of research and study, oriented on the founding faiths of society and driving towards that transformation which is the goal of free India. Man is subject to more stresses and strains in this age than ever before, and a new class of crimes arising from restlessness of the spirit and frustration of ambitions has erupted. White-collar crime, with which we are concerned here, belongs to this disease, of man's inside. 16. The new Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, incorporates some of these ideas and gives an opportunity in Section 248(2) to both parties to bring to the notice of the Court facts and circumstances which will help personalise the sentence from a reformative angle. This Court, in Santa Singh [Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 190 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 546] , has emphasised how fundamental it is to put such provision to dynamic judicial use, while dealing with the analogous provisions in Section 235(2): “This new provision in Section 235(2) is in consonance with the modern trends in penology and sentencing procedures. There was no such provision in the old Code. It was realised that sentencing is an important stage in the process of administration of criminal justice — as important as the adjudication of guilt — and it should not be consigned to a subsidiary position as if it were a matter of not much consequence. It should be a matter of some anxiety to the Court to impose an appropriate punisnment on the criminal and sentencing should, therefore, receive serious attention of the Court. Modern penology regards crime and criminal as equally material when the right sentence has to be picked out. It turns the focus not only on the crime, but also on the criminal and seeks to personalise the punishment so that the reformist component is as much operative as the deterrent element. It is necessary for this purpose that facts of a social and personal nature, sometimes altogether irrelevant if not injurious, at the stage of fixing the guilt, may have to be brought to the notice of the Court when the actual sentence is determined. A proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances — extenuating or aggravating — of the offence, the prior criminal record, if any, of the offender, the age of the offender, the record of the offender as to employment, the background of the offender with reference to education, home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional and mental conditions of the offender, the prospects for the rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of the offender to normal life in the community, the possibility of treatment or training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need, if any, for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of offence. These factors have to be taken into account by the Court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence. (p. 195) The hearing contemplated by Section 235(2) is not confined merely to hearing oral submissions, but it is also intended to give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused to place before the Court facts and material relating to various factors bearing on the question of sentence and if they are contested by either 26 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 side, then to produce evidence for the purpose of establishing the same. Of course, care would have to be taken by the Court to see that this hearing on the question of sentence is not abused and turned into an instrument for unduly protracting the proceedings. The claim of due and proper hearing would have to be harmonised with the requirement of expeditious disposal of proceedings.” 47. Further, in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.85 and 86 it is held as under: 85. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime-doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime-doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence. 86. This Court has laid down certain principles of penology from time to time. There is a long line of cases on this aspect. However, reference to few of them shall suffice in the present case. 48. In Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while awarding sentence, the Court must strike a balance between protecting society and reforming the offender. Sentencing should serve reformatory, deterrent, and punitive purposes, depending upon the nature and gravity of the offence, the way it was committed, and the conduct of the offender. However, in certain offences, such as those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the PC Act’) where the scope for reformation is minimal, the sentence must primarily reflect the seriousness of the crime and the offender's conduct. At paragraph Nos.20 and 21 it is held as under: 20. Though we have referred to the decisions covering a period of almost three decades, it does not necessarily convey that there had been no deliberation much prior to that. There had been. In B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn. [B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn., (1974) 3 SCC 85 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 796] , the Court while delving into the issue of punishment had observed (SCC p. 89, para 10) that punishment is designed to protect the society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for 19 (2012) 2 SCC 648 20 (2017) 4 SCC 546 27 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question of awarding appropriate sentence. 21. The purpose of referring to the aforesaid precedents is that they are to be kept in mind and adequately weighed while exercising the discretion pertaining to awarding of sentence. Protection of society on the one hand and the reformation of an individual are the facets to be kept in view. In Shanti Lal Meena v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Shanti Lal Meena v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 6 SCC 185 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 895 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 247] , the Court has held (SCC p. 192, para 20) that as far as punishment for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, there is no serious scope for reforming the convicted public servant. Therefore, it shall depend upon the nature of crime, the manner in which it is committed, the propensity shown and the brutality reflected. 49. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar 21, at paragraph Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 held as under: 5. Whether the Court while awarding a sentence would take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. While doing so, however, the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the accused plays an important role. The offences which affect public health must be dealt with severely. For the said purpose, the courts must notice the object for enacting Article 47 of the Constitution of India. 6. There are certain offences which touch our social fabric. We must remind ourselves that even while introducing the doctrine of plea bargaining in the Code of Criminal Procedure, certain types of offences had been kept out of the purview thereof. While imposing sentences, the said principles should be borne in mind. 7. A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a crime. It is resorted to after a person is convicted of the offence. It is the ultimate goal of any justice-delivery system. Parliament, however, in providing for a hearing on sentence, as would appear from sub-section (2) of Section 235, sub-section (2) of Section 248, Section 325 as also Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has laid down certain principles. The said provisions lay down the principle that the court in awarding the sentence must take into consideration a large number of relevant factors; sociological backdrop of the accused being one of them. 8. Although a wide discretion has been conferred upon the court, the same must be exercised judiciously. It would depend upon the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and his mental state. Age of the accused is also relevant. 50. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N22, held that the primary object of sentencing is to protect society and curb criminal tendencies by imposing an appropriate punishment. While determining the 21 (2008) 7 SCC 550 22 (1991) 3 SCC 471 28 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 sentence, the Court must consider the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission, the motive, the conduct of the accused, and other relevant circumstances. The sentencing process should strike a balance between deterrence and reformation, being stern where the offence warrants and tempered with mercy where justified, to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. Thus, at paragraph No.9 it is held as under: 9. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of order should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that, “State of criminal law continues to be — as it should be — a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society.” Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation of sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. For instance a murder committed due to deep seated personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an organised crime or mass murders of innocent people would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence. In Mahesh v. State of M.P. [(1987) 3 SCC 80 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 379 : (1987) 2 SCR 710] , this Court while refusing to reduce the death sentence observed thus : (SCC p. 82, para 6) “[I]t will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for the accused would be to render the justicing system of the country suspect. The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon.” 51. In Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while determining the appropriate sentence, the Court must balance 23 (2012) 4 SCC 257 29 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case and assign due weight to each. Sentencing should be guided by the doctrine of proportionality, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission, the circumstances of the offender, the possibility of reformation, and the impact of crime on society. Every case must be decided on its own facts, and the sentence imposed should reflect a just balance between the culpability of the accused and the demands of justice. The Court further reiterated that life imprisonment is the rule and the death penalty is an exception, to be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases where no lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. Thus, at paragraph Nos.76, 77, 78 and 79, it is held as under: 76. The law enunciated by this Court in its recent judgments, as already noticed, adds and elaborates the principles that were stated in Bachan Singh [(1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] and thereafter, in Machhi Singh [(1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 681] . The aforesaid judgments, primarily dissect these principles into two different compartments—one being the “aggravating circumstances” while the other being the “mitigating circumstances”. The court would consider the cumulative effect of both these aspects and normally, it may not be very appropriate for the court to decide the most significant aspect of sentencing policy with reference to one of the classes under any of the following heads while completely ignoring other classes under other heads. To balance the two is the primary duty of the court. It will be appropriate for the court to come to a final conclusion upon balancing the exercise that would help to administer the criminal justice system better and provide an effective and meaningful reasoning by the court as contemplated under Section 354(3) CrPC. Aggravating circumstances (1) The offences relating to the commission of heinous crimes like murder, rape, armed dacoity, kidnapping, etc. by the accused with a prior record of conviction for capital felony or offences committed by the person having a substantial history of serious assaults and criminal convictions. (2) The offence was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of another serious offence. (3) The offence was committed with the intention to create a fear psychosis in the public at large and was committed in a public place by a weapon or device which clearly could be hazardous to the life of more than one person. (4) The offence of murder was committed for ransom or like offences to receive money or monetary benefits. (5) Hired killings. 30 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 (6) The offence was committed outrageously for want only while involving inhumane treatment and torture to the victim. (7) The offence was committed by a person while in lawful custody. (8) The murder or the offence was committed to prevent a person lawfully carrying out his duty like arrest or custody in a place of lawful confinement of himself or another. For instance, murder is of a person who had acted in lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 CrPC. (9) When the crime is enormous in proportion like making an attempt of murder of the entire family or members of a particular community. (10) When the victim is innocent, helpless or a person relies upon the trust of relationship and social norms, like a child, helpless woman, a daughter or a niece staying with a father/uncle and is inflicted with the crime by such a trusted person. (11) When murder is committed for a motive which evidences total depravity and meanness. (12) When there is a cold-blooded murder without provocation. (13) The crime is committed so brutally that it pricks or shocks not only the judicial conscience but even the conscience of the society. Mitigating circumstances (1) The manner and circumstances in and under which the offence was committed, for example, extreme mental or emotional disturbance or extreme provocation in contradistinction to all these situations in normal course. (2) The age of the accused is a relevant consideration but not a determinative factor by itself. (3) The chances of the accused of not indulging in commission of the crime again and the probability of the accused being reformed and rehabilitated. (4) The condition of the accused shows that he was mentally defective and the defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the circumstances of his criminal conduct. (5) The circumstances which, in normal course of life, would render such a behaviour possible and could have the effect of giving rise to mental imbalance in that given situation like persistent harassment or, in fact, leading to such a peak of human behaviour that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence. (6) Where the court upon proper appreciation of evidence is of the view that the crime was not committed in a preordained manner and that the death resulted in the course of commission of another crime and that there was a possibility of it being construed as consequences to the commission of the primary crime. (7) Where it is absolutely unsafe to rely upon the testimony of a sole eyewitness though the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused. 77. While determining the questions relatable to sentencing policy, the court has to follow certain principles and those principles are the loadstar besides the above considerations in imposition or otherwise of the death sentence. Principles (1) The court has to apply the test to determine, if it was the “rarest of rare” case for imposition of a death sentence. (2) In the opinion of the court, imposition of any other punishment i.e. life imprisonment would be completely inadequate and would not meet the ends of justice. (3) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. (4) The option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be cautiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all relevant considerations. (5) The method (planned or otherwise) and the manner (extent of brutality and inhumanity, etc.) in which the crime was committed and the circumstances leading to commission of such heinous crime. 31 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 78. Stated broadly, these are the accepted indicators for the exercise of judicial discretion but it is always preferred not to fetter the judicial discretion by attempting to make the excessive enumeration, in one way or another. In other words, these are the considerations which may collectively or otherwise weigh in the mind of the court, while exercising its jurisdiction. It is difficult to state it as an absolute rule. Every case has to be decided on its own merits. The judicial pronouncements, can only state the precepts that may govern the exercise of judicial discretion to a limited extent. Justice may be done on the facts of each case. These are the factors which the court may consider in its endeavour to do complete justice between the parties. 79. The court then would draw a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Both aspects have to be given their respective weightage. The court has to strike a balance between the two and see towards which side the scale/balance of justice tilts. The principle of proportion between the crime and the punishment is the principle of “just deserts” that serves as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable. In other words, the “doctrine of proportionality” has a valuable application to the sentencing policy under the Indian criminal jurisprudence. Thus, the court will not only have to examine what is just but also as to what the accused deserves keeping in view the impact on the society at large. 52. In the instant case, about the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, it is to be noted that all the seized currency notes were not sent for forensic examination to ascertain whether each of them was counterfeit. Only one currency note from the possession of each of the Petitioners was subjected to forensic analysis and was found to be counterfeit. In fact, in the instant case, there is no evidence of involvement in a larger counterfeit racket; only possession under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is proved, while charge under Section 489B of ‘the I.P.C.,’ fails. Of course, the accused failed to give any plausible explanation regarding possession or receipt of currency notes. 53. Apart from the above, the Petitioners have already undergone judicial custody for 87, 85 and 84 days, respectively. The alleged offence took place in the year 2011. The learned Trial Court delivered its judgment in the year 2016, and the learned Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 32 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 the year 2019. The present Criminal Revision Cases have come up for final hearing and disposal only after nearly fifteen years from the date of the alleged occurrence. Thus, the Petitioners have been facing the ordeal of criminal proceedings for about fifteen years. 54. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The expression "speedy trial" includes not only the stages of investigation and trial but also the expeditious disposal of appeals and revisions. Therefore, the prolonged pendency of these Criminal Revision Cases for nearly fifteen years is a relevant mitigating circumstance while considering the quantum of sentence. The law on this aspect has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar24. This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar25. 55. The Superintendent of the Special Sub Jail, Bhimavaram, submitted the nominal rolls of the Petitioners. As per the said nominal rolls, Accused No.1, Dasireddy Krishna, was admitted to the Special Sub Jail, Bhimavaram, on 30.08.2011 and was released on 25.11.2011. Accused No.2, Kotla Koteswara Rao, was admitted to the jail on 30.08.2011 and was released on 23.11.2011. 24 Air 1979 SC 1360 25 2000 (1) BLJR 37 33 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 Accused No.3, Muddla Satyanarayana, was admitted to the jail on 30.08.2011 and was released on 21.11.2011. 56. As noticed supra, Accused No.1 has undergone major hip surgery and is presently unable to move without assistance. All the Petitioners have aged parents, spouses and children dependent upon them. It is also stated that the Petitioners are suffering from various serious health ailments. The voluntary submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that an enhanced fine of Rs.75,000/- may be imposed as a measure of penance deserves consideration on each of the Petitioners. Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ confers discretion upon the Court to impose imprisonment, or fine, or both. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioners are not habitual offenders and that no previous or similar criminal antecedents have been reported against them, this Court finds the said submission to be reasonable and deserving of acceptance. In such circumstances, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years appears to be excessive and disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case. 57. In the result, the Criminal Revision Cases are partly allowed. The conviction of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charge punishable under Section 489C of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is modified to the period of 34 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 imprisonment already undergone by the Petitioners. An additional fine of Rs.75,000/- is imposed on each of the Petitioners. 58. The Petitioners shall deposit the enhanced fine amount, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 59. In the event of failure on the part of any of the Petitioners to deposit the enhanced fine amount within the stipulated time, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court shall stand revived, and the learned Trial Court shall take necessary steps for securing the presence of the defaulting Petitioner(s) and commit them to prison for serving the remaining sentence in accordance with law. 60. The Registrar (Judicial) shall take necessary steps in accordance with the above directions. 61. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 20.07.2026 KMS 35 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.26, 45 and 46 of 2019 Dated 20.07.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 25, 45 and 46 of 2019 20.07.2026 W KMS