- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30343-DB CRL.A No. 2139 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2139 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. SHARIFUL ISLAM @ SHARIFULLA @ SHARIFUDDIN S/O ABU BAKKAR SIDDIK AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT BABUPARA VILLAGE P.O.-DEONAPUR P.S. BAISHNABNAGAR DISTARICT: MALDAH WEST BENGALRU, PIN: 732 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAKSHITH R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATES OFFICE AT ADVOCATE GENEARL OFFICE HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARANTKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALRUU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30343-DB CRL.A No. 2139 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(2) OF NIA ACT, 2008 R/W SECTION 374(2) OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.08.2024 AND SENTENCE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.386/2018 OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY FOR AN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 489(B) AND 120(B) OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES) (CCH-50), BENGALURU, AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FROM THE ALLEGED CHARGES AND HE MAY BE SET AT LIBERTY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special PP for the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant, who has been arrayed as accused No.7 against conviction and sentence for a period of six years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 489B of IPC. In default of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30343-DB CRL.A No. 2139 of 2024 payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The accused No.7 is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and also invoked provisions under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 3. Now the main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the very conviction and sentence is erroneous and no material is collected, except call details to invoke the offence under Sections 489B and 120B of IPC. The counsel would submit that, in order to invoke offence under Section 489B of IPC, no material except the voice recording. The counsel would vehemently contend that even the sentence for a period of six years for the offence punishable under Section 489B of IPC not commensurate with the gravity of the offence and without any other material with regard to supply of Fake Indian Currency Note (‘FICN’ for short), the Trial Court ought not to have sentenced the appellant for a period of six years. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30343-DB CRL.A No. 2139 of 2024 4. Per contra, learned Special PP for respondent would submit that this accused was having touch with all the accused persons and call details clearly disclose that before committing offence, all of them were in constant touch with each other. He would particularly submit that this accused was having constant touch with accused No.2 and also received an amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.14,000/- from accused No.2 in connection with the offence. He also would vehemently contend that other accused, who have pleaded guilty were also sentenced for a period of six years and similarly, this accused is also sentenced for a period of six years. Hence, the punishment and sentence imposed by the Trial Court is not exorbitant and the contention that the same not commensurate with the gravity of the offence cannot be accepted and no ground is made out for acquittal and for reducing the sentence. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special PP for the respondent and taking note of the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30343-DB CRL.A No. 2139 of 2024 (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable Sections 489B and 120B of IPC and whether it requires interference? (ii) Whether the sentence imposed by the Trial Court not commensurate with the gravity of offence and whether it requires modification? (iii) What order? Point No.(i) 6. Having taken note of the material available on record, particularly evidence of the prosecution, the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.31 and the documents Exs.P1 to Exs.P247 and also M.Os.1 to 10 are seized. On behalf of the defence, one witness is examined as D.W.1. 7. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, particularly in respect of role of this appellant is concerned taken note of CDR which clearly discloses that this appellant was in constant touch with other accused persons, particularly accused No.2. It is also the case - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30343-DB CRL.A No. 2139 of 2024 of prosecution that he has received an amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.14,000/- from accused No.2. Other than this material, only voice records are collected i.e., Ex.P53-legally intercepted voice calls and so also Ex.P59 i.e., transcript of intercepts between accused No.2 and this appellant. 8. The Trial Court having considered guilt of other accused, who have pleaded guilty sentenced them for six years. In the case on hand, in respect of this appellant is concerned, except CDR and legally intercepted voice calls, no other material is collected. But, the main contention of learned Special PP before the Trial Court is that accused No.7 is the main supplier of FICN. But, in order to substantiate that he was supplying FICN, no material was collected. When such being the case, except the amount what he has received from accused No.2 i.e., Rs.20,000/- and Rs.14,000/- and also call details, no other material is placed before the Court. 9. Having taken note of material available on record, learned counsel appearing for the appellant makes the submission that the punishment and sentence imposed is exorbitant and not commensurate with the gravity of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30343-DB CRL.A No. 2139 of 2024 offence. Taking note of the material collected against this appellant, except CDR and legally intercepted voice calls, no other material is collected. Learned Special PP for the respondent also not brought to notice of this Court with regard to supply of FICN and no recovery of FICN from the possession of this accused No.7. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the material collected by the I.O. is in respect of offence punishable under Sections 489B and 120B of IPC are call details and legally intercepted voice calls, we do not find any ground to acquit the accused. Hence, we answer point (i) as ‘negative’. Point No.(ii) 10. Taking note of gravity of the offence and also role played by this appellant that he was in constant touch with accused No.2 and also received an amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.14,000/-, apart from Ex.P53-legally intercepted voice calls and so also Ex.P59 i.e., transcript of intercepts, no other material is collected against him to substantiate that he had supplied FICN to the other accused persons. Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence which - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30343-DB CRL.A No. 2139 of 2024 he has already undergone for a period of five years. The appellant is also completing 5 years for tomorrow (i.e., 20.06.2026) from the date of arrest on 26.02.2021 and the same is not disputed by learned Special PP for the respondent. Hence, invoking Section 428 of Cr.P.C, the appellant-accused No.7 in view of reducing sentence for a period of five years, he may be released by the jail authority, forthwith subject to confirmation of payment of fine imposed by the Trial Court, if he is not required in any other case. Therefore, point No.(ii) is answered accordingly. Point No.(iii) 11. In view of the discussion made above, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal appeal is allowed-in-part and conviction is confirmed. (ii) The sentence imposed by the Trial Court is modified from six years to five years and the Jail Authority shall release the appellant, forthwith, if he has completed five years and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30343-DB CRL.A No. 2139 of 2024 subject to payment of fine, if he is not required in any other case. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1