1 2025:CGHC:12932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 87 of 2008 Hemant Kumar Sinha S/o Pardeshi Ram Sinha, aged about 24 years, Occupation – Computer Teacher/Trainer, R/o Village Borsi, P.S.-Magarlod, Distt.-Dhamtari, C.G. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District- Dhamtari, C.G. ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 18.03.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 12/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 489 (C) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default thereof, simple imprisonment for six months. Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.21 10:38:25 +0530 2 2. The case of prosecution is that, on 01.10.2006, Inspector R.K. Verma, received information from informant that appellant Hemant Kumar Sinha was in possession of counterfeit currency notes and attempting to circulate them. Based on this information, Inspector Verma, along with his team and witnesses, interrogated the accused/appellant, who then produced counterfeit currency notes, including three 500 notes, one of which was genuine, while the other ₹ two were counterfeit. Three 100 notes, all of which were ₹ counterfeit. One 50 note which was also counterfeit. In the ₹ presence of witnesses, these notes were seized. On the basis of memorandum statement (Ex.P-5) of the appellant, the police proceeded to his house and seized other counterfeit notes, monitor, printer-scanner, UPS and other articles which were used in making counterfeit notes. Thereafter Dehati Nalishi was registered and the investigation proceeded. The seized counterfeit notes were sent for verification to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in Nagpur and the Currency Note Press in Nashik. After receiving their report confirming that the notes were counterfeit, the accused was arrested, and his family was informed. FIR was registered at the police station and witness statements were recorded. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 3 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now aged about more than 42 years and has family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 8 months. The incident took place in the year 2006 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is also pending since 2008. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Ram Kumar Verma (PW-7), memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-5), property seizure memo (Ex.P-6) and report of Currency Note Press, Nashik Road (Ex.P12-D), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 489(C) of IPC which is based on evidence 4 available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2006 i.e. about 19 years ago. At that time, the appellant was aged about 24 years and now he must be aged more than 42 years having family responsibility. He is 12th passed and also done BCA in studies. He has no criminal antecedent. The appellant is facing the lis since 2006 and he has already remained in jail for about 8 months. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 489 (C) of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 5 year is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 8 months. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham