1 2025:CGHC:32598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 495 of 2013 1 - Manish Jain, S/o Ramesh Chandra Jain, Aged About 47 Years, R/o C-38, Sagar Homes, Civil & Revenue District- Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspour, District- Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta appears on behalf of Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment On Board 14/07/2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.2013 passed by learned II Additional Judge of the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in 2 Sessions Trial No. 24/2013 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489 (C) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for six months. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 09.10.2012, complainant Manoj Yadav who was working at a wine shop situated near Maharana Pratap Chowk, lodged a report stating that at around 2:00 p.m., the appellant visited his shop and purchased a liquor from that shop. While purchasing the liquor, a 100/- rupee note was given by the appellant. The appellant again visited the shop and had purchased one more bottle of liquor and had given a note of Rs. 100/-. When the complainant got suspicious, he compared both the notes. When the serial number of both the notes was the same, he informed the police over the phone. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was taken to the police station and offence was registered against him. In the presence of the witnesses, 6 notes of Rs. 100/- each were seized from the accused and 2 notes with the same serial number were seized from the complainant’s shop. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. The competent Court had committed the matter to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 489 B and 489 C of IPC against the appellant, to which the appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false 3 implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 489-B of IPC & convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned trial Court convicted the appellant merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The trial Court failed to appreciate that all the seizure witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution story. Even Manoj Yadav (PW-1) has made a categorical deposition before the trial Court that no statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the investigating authorities. In his cross-examination, he stated that he signed the documents which were part of the prosecution challan only at the instance of the police authorities. He has also stated in his Court deposition that the seizure was not done in his presence. In the instant case, the prosecution did not put any specific question to the accused in order to find out whether the accused knew that the currency notes were of such nature. No evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the nature of the notes. In such a situation, the appellant ought to have been acquitted of the charge under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. It is a settled proposition of law that the knowledge or reason to believe that the note was forged has to be proved. It must be proved that the accused possessing the currency note knew or had reason to believe that the currency notes were counterfeited. In the instant case, 4 the prosecution has miserably failed to adduce any evidence to establish before the trial Court that the appellant had knowledge that the currency which was passed on by him was counterfeit or forged. Thus, the learned trial Court has committed an error of law by convicting the appellant under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the appellant is being done on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, it was a mandatory obligation upon the prosecution to complete the chain of circumstances for getting the appellant convicted under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has not lead any evidence before the trial Court to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 489-C of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2012, this appeal is pending since 2013, at the time of incident, the appellant was aged about 47 years and as of now he is aged about 60 years, he remained in jail for more than 1 year, during trial, he was on bail and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him, since there is no minimum sentence prescribed under the aforesaid section, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after minutely appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence rightly convicted 5 and sentenced the appellant under Section 489-C of IPC. Therefore, this appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 489- B of IPC & convicted and sentenced him under Section 489-C of IPC. 9. Prosecution witnesses namely Manoj Yadav (P.W.-1), Manoj Gupta (P.W.-2) and Brajesh Singh (P.W.-3) did not support the case of the prosecution however Manoj Yadav (P.W.-1) admitted his signature on Arrest memo (Ex.P/3), Manoj Gupta (P.W.-2) admitted his signature on arrest memo (Ex.P/3) and seizure memo (Ex.P/5) & Brajesh Singh also admitted his signature on seizure memo (Ex.P/2 and P/5). 10. Sub-Inspector G.R. Baghel (P.W.-4) stated that he recorded the statements of complainant- Manoj Yadav (P.W.-1), Manoj Gupta (P.W.- 2) and Mr. Brajesh Singh (P.W.-3). Further, he stated that he recorded the statements of the said witnesses as they had stated to him. 11.Virendra Shrivastava (P.W.-5) supported all the proceedings done against the appellant and D.R. Yadav (P.W.-6) also supported the same and admitted his signature on Ex.P/8. 12. Upon perusal of the evidence of both the police officers and signature of independent witnesses, it is quite vivid that seizure of counterfeit notes from the appellant has been proved. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and thereby convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Thus, the 6 findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence of witnesses, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 489-C of IPC is affirmed. 13. As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2012 and nearly 13 years have rolled by since then, appellant is now senior citizen aged about 60 years and he remained in jail for more than 1 year, the appellant is on bail since long and did not misuse the liberty so granted, hence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded under Section 489-C of IPC to the appellant by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 14.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 489-C of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. 15. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of CrPC. 16. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV