1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122-II CRA-S-1627-SB-2005 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.09.2026 Ashwani Kumar ..... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. G.V.S. Behl, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The learned State Counsel has filed status report as well as custody certificate of the appellant. The same be taken on record. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 19.08.2005 and order of sentence dated 20.08.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Ambala, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. 3. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR, i.e. the FIR No.197 dated 28.06.2004, was registered at the instance of ‘SI Ajit Kumar’, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 489-A, 489-C of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala. In the wake of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellant and his GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 co-accused, namely ‘Balwinder Singh’ and ‘Gaurav’, were sent to face trial before the learned trial Court. 4. The appellant participated in the abovementioned trial, which, by virtue of impugned judgment, culminated into the conviction of appellant and his co-accused ‘Balwinder Singh’, whereas co-accused ‘Gaurav’ was acquitted. Thus, vide order dated 20.08.2005, on the point of quantum of sentence, following sentence was awarded to the appellant:- Offence under Section Sentence 489-C IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 5. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘SI Ajit Kumar’, who had reported that on 28.06.2004, when he was leading team of police officials, deputed for patrolling at Patiala Chowk, a tip-off was given to him, by a reliable source, that the accused ‘Balwinder Singh’ and ‘Ashwani Kumar’ (the appellant herein) were involved in preparing fake/counterfeit currency notes with the help of a scanner, for cheating the public, and that they were carrying a large quantity of fake currency notes, while travelling, from Ambala Cantt to Himachal Pradesh in a ‘Toyota Qualis’ car, bearing registration No.CH03-D-3254. 7. According to above-named police officer, thereafter, police GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 party set-up a picket at the Sadopur barrier. As per above-named police officer, on intercepting the abovementioned vehicle, the driver identified himself as ‘Ashwani Kumar’ and the person, sitting on navigator seat, as ‘Balwinder Singh’. As per prosecution case, on search of the car, a polythene bag was recovered, kept between the front seats. According to prosecution, it was found that the bag was contained 548 fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- and 16 fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50/-. The prosecution further alleged that in addition to currency notes, one scanner and one cutter were also recovered from the rear seat of the car. 8. It was case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned seizure, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses, under Section 161 CrPC, and completed other usual formalities of investigation. Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of CrPC was filed in the Court. 9. To discharge its burden with regard to charge against the appellant, the prosecution in the instant case had relied upon documentary as well as oral evidence. The documents proved and marked with exhibits, by the prosecution, were:- Ex.P1 - The information memo sent to the police station (ruqqa) Ex.P2 - Endorsement recorded on the abovementioned information-memo Ex.P3 - First Information Report Ex.P4 - Report of Assistant General Manager, RBI Chandigarh GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Ex.P5 - Bill/receipt regarding purchase of printer/ copier/scanner/Fax Ex.P6 - Recovery memo of printer/copier/ scanner/Fax Ex.P7 - Case property (printer/scanner) Ex.P8 - Adopter Ex.P9 - Recovery memo of notes, scanner, cutter, Qualis car Ex.P10 - Disclosure statement of accused ‘Balwinder Singh’ Ex.P11 - Disclosure statement of appellant Ashwani Kumar Ex.P12 to Ex.P575 - Recovery memo of fake currency notes Ex.P576 - Report regarding fake currency notes Ex.P578 - Attestation by Teshildar over seized fake currency notes Ex.P579 - Arrest memo of accused ‘Gaurav’ 9. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned documentary evidence, as many as 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. They were:- PW-1 - ASI Jiya Lal PW-2 - ASI Gyas Ram PW-3 - R.S. Kataria, Assistant General Managar, RBI Chandigarh PW-4 - Wasif Zafar PW-5 - HC Suresh Kumar PW-6 - Harvinder Singh, Ahlmad (Criminal) PW-7 - SI Ajit Kumar PW-8 - ASI Gurmail Singh PW-9 - ASI Randhir Singh PW-10 - Godhu Ram Rohil, Tehsildar, Guhla, District Kaithal PW-11 - DSP Anil Kumar, HQ Ambala GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 10. Once the prosecution evidence was recorded, the learned trial Court completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity of defence evidence was afforded to the appellant. In his defence evidence, the appellant had examined as many as five witnesses. They were:- DW-1 - HC Prem Singh DW-2 - HC Raj Kumar DW-3 - Ct. Joginder Singh DW-4 - Anil Kumar Kalia, Ahlmad (Criminal) DW-5 - Dinesh Kumar, District Record Keeper, Judicial Record Room, Ambala 11. The appellant in the instant case had relied upon documentary evidence also. The documents proved and marked with exhibits, by the appellant, were:- Ex.D1 - Photocopy of FIR No.137 dated 02.07.2004, Police Station Mahesh Nagar, under Section 406 IPC Ex.D2 - Photocopy of FIR No.206 dated 15.07.2004, Police Station Baldev Nagar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Ex.D3 - Photocopy of FIR No.174 dated 05.06.2004, Police Station Ambala Cantt, under Sections 328, 379 IPC Ex.D4 - Photocopy of FIR No.122 dated 01.03.1999, Police Station Una, under Sections 279, 337 IPC Ex.D4/1 - Photocopy of ruqqa in the abovementioned FIR Ex.D4/2 - Photocopy of challan in the case pertaining to FIR No.122 dated 01.03.1999, Police Station Una, under Sections 279, 337 IPC Ex.D5 - Photocopy of FIR No.174 dated 05.06.2004, Police Station Ambala Cantt, under Sections 328, 379 IPC GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 Ex.D5/1 - Photocopy of ruqqa in the abovementioned FIR Mark D5/X - Photocopy of hotel register Ex.D6 - Copy of RC Ex.D7 & Ex.D8 - Permits Ex.D9 - Copy of bills 12. Once the evidence of both the parties was complete, the learned trial Court gave opportunity to the learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the appellant to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction, against the appellant, was pronounced and, accordingly, the appellant and his co-accused ‘Balwinder Singh’ were sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as detailed hereinabove. 13. Heard. 14. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be set aside, as both of them are outcome of non-application of judicial mind. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that necessary ingredients, meant for the commission of offence under Section 489-C of IPC, were not proved by the prosecution, and the evidence was grossly inadequate to meet the standard prescribed under the law for proving a charge. As per learned counsel for the appellant, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, as well as assumptions and presumptions, the learned trial Court held that charges against the appellant were successfully proved. The learned counsel for the appellant has further GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 contended that the appellant has been wrongly held guilty, and convicted, by the learned trial Court. 15. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the instant appeal, the appellant is not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant categorically contends that at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order on quantum of sentence only. 16. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2004. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is facing the agony of litigation for the last more than 22 years and that, in fact, he has already suffered more punishment than he deserved. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the offence in question was the first offence committed by the appellant, and that before or after the offence, related to present case, the appellant has not been prosecuted for any other offence. 17. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that in the present case, the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of one year, one month & twenty two days. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in view of above-discussed factors, and the fact that minimum sentence has not been prescribed for the offence, for which the appellant was convicted, the sentence already undergone by the appellant may be treated to be sufficient. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 18. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the appellant has been found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 489-C IPC. According to learned State Counsel, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e. imprisonment for a period of three years, is already on lower side, and that the appellant is not entitled to a sentence of less than three years imprisonment. As per learned State Counsel, the instant appeal has no merit and deserves dismissal. 19. The record has been perused carefully. 20. Once it is categorical stand of the appellant that he is not challenging the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court, it is hereby held that there is no scope for interference or indulgence in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of appellants, for the offence under Section 489-C IPC. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby dismissed. 21. As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in view of the fact that the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of one year, one month & twenty two days, against the awarded sentence of three years, and that he was never prosecuted for any offence, either before the instant case or thereafter, it is hereby held that the appellant is entitled to a lenient view. 22. In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby held to be harsh and, as a consequence thereof, it is hereby observed that with regard to quantum of sentence, there is need for GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 interference and indulgence in the impugned order on the point of quantum of sentence, by exercising the appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court. Thus, in my opinion, by exercising the abovementioned jurisdiction, the sentence awarded to the appellant needs to be rationalized and reduced. 23. In the light of above observations, if the factual matrix of present case is analyzed, it transpires that following are the points which are required to be taken into consideration: - (a) that the incident in question had taken place about 22 years ago; (b) that the appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 22 years; and (c) that against the awarded sentence of three years, the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of one year, one month & twenty two days; (d) that the appellant has clean record, before and after the offence in question; and (e) that appellant is a 49-year-old person. 24. As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that in the present case, the appellant is entitled to a lenient view, and that the sentence already undergone in the present case, is adequate to meet the ends of justice. 25. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. The judgment of conviction is upheld; but order on the point of quantum of sentence is modified, and the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 26. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 02.09.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document