1 2025:CGHC:38122 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 63 of 2004 1. Pawan Kumar Sahu, aged about 26 years, S/o Khubu Sahu, R/o. Village-Siriyadih, PS-Kasdol, Distt- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chandrika Prasad Sahu, aged about 28 years, S/o. Dayal Sahu, R/o. Village-Kasdol, PS-Kasdol, Distt- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S-Kasdol, Distt- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 125 of 2004 Hemlal, aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Ajor Das Patel, R/o. Village - Hardi, PS & Tahsil : Kasdol, Distt- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, P.S -Kasdol, Distt- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In CRA No.63/2004 For the Appellants : Mr. Rishab Gupta & Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. In CRA No.125/2004 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shobhit Kosta, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 01.08.2025. 1. The above appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.01.2004, passed by learned Second Additional Session Judge, Baloda Bazar, (CG) in Trial No.42/2003, whereby appellants stand convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 489(C) of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years & fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, 01 month additional RI. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that appellants were found in the possession of the counterfeit currency notes, they have using the said currency notes knowing that same are fake and illegal. On the basis of seizure, aforementioned crime/offence has been registered against them. 3. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against them. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 06 witnesses. Statements of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating evidence available against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. 3 5. After completion of trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced appellants herein in the manner as described above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that they are not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and confining their arguments to the quantum of sentence only. They submit that alleged seizure/incident was of the year 2004, it was first offence of appellants and thereafter they had not indulged themselves in any other criminal activity, at the time of incident appellants were aged about 26-28 years and at present they are more than 55 years of age, appellants have already served about 24 days of jail sentence and they have already deposited the fine amount, therefore, no purpose would be served by again sending the appellants jail after a lapse of about 20 years. Hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the nature of offence, leniency should not be shown to appellants herein. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 9. Though learned counsel for appellants has not challenged conviction of appellants and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 4 10. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellants are guilty for offence punishable under Section 489(C) of the IPC. 11. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that alleged incident was of the year 2004, i.e., more than 20 years have elapsed, appellants have already served about 24 days of jail sentence and already deposited fine amount, they are not having any other criminal antecedents, age of appellants at the time of incident was 26-28 years and now they are more than 55 years of age, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending appellants to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if sentence awarded to appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 12. Accordingly, above appeals are allowed in part. Conviction of appellants under Section 489(C) of IPC is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon appellants under aforementioned Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13. Record of case be sent back forthwith with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-