Bhojram Nayak vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondent.

This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge (N.I.A.) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Special Case (N.I.A.) No.02/2023 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.03.2023, Sub-Inspector Kamalnarayan Sharma (PW-8), along with Staff Constable Anand Sharma (PW-4) and Constable Zafar Ahmed (PW-5), was on patrolling duty when they received information that a person on a motorcycle near Ring Road No. 1, Aurora Colony, intended to sell counterfeit currency notes. Acting on this information, Constable Anand Sharma (PW-4) summoned witnesses Hrithik Chaudhary (PW-2) and Raju Sahu (PW-3), served notice under Section 160 of the CrPC, and recorded an informant panchnama.

Upon reaching the location, the police and witnesses observed a person, later identified as Bhojram Nayak (accused), standing with a motorcycle. The accused was informed about the allegation of possessing counterfeit currency and consented to a search. During the search, Rs. 18,500/- in counterfeit notes, in denominations of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 200/-, and Rs. 100/-, were recovered from a polythene bag hidden in his shirt. The recovery and search were documented through panchnamas and notices, and the accused failed to provide any legal explanation for possession of the currency.

The recovered notes were sent for verification to the State Bank of India, RBI Nagpur, Bank Note Press Nashik, and finally Bank Note Press Dewas, all of which confirmed that the notes were counterfeit. The police completed necessary procedural formalities, including recording statements of witnesses, preparing a site map, registering crime exhibits, and arresting the accused.

After the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC before the Court of Sessions Judge (N.I.A.), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Upon consideration, the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge (N.I.A.), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, which took cognizance of the matter and conducted the trial in accordance with law. The prosecution, after thorough investigation, relied on the evidence collected during the course of inquiry, including witness statements, seizure documents, test reports of the alleged counterfeit notes, and other relevant material.

In order to establish the commission of the alleged offences, the prosecution examined a total of eight witnesses, designated as PW-1 to PW-8. These witnesses included eyewitnesses, police officials involved in the investigation, and experts who verified the authenticity of the seized notes. In addition to oral evidence, the prosecution produced and exhibited a total of thirty-four documents, marked as Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/34, to substantiate the allegations.

During the trial, statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he categorically denied the charges leveled against him, pleaded his innocence, and claimed that he had been falsely implicated. In his defence, the accused did not examine any witnesses, but exhibited statements of two individuals, marked as Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2, in support of his claim.

The learned Special Judge (N.I.A.), Bilaspur, after carefully appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, including the testimony of eyewitnesses, police officials, and expert reports confirming the counterfeit nature of the seized currency notes, and after considering all relevant documents, passed the impugned judgment on 07.06.2024 and held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as indicated in the second paragraph of this judgment.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking to challenge both the conviction and the quantum of sentence imposed upon him contending that the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence, that he has been falsely implicated, and that his defence has not been adequately considered, thereby necessitating interference by this Court in the interest of justice.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not challenging the conviction and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence. It is submitted that the incident allegedly took place on 22.03.2023, when the appellant was found in possession of Rs. 18,500/- in counterfeit currency near Ring Road No. 1, Aurora Colony. The police, along with independent witnesses, recovered the notes with the appellant’s consent, verified their authenticity through competent authorities, and completed all procedural formalities, including recording statements, preparing a site map, registering exhibits, and arresting the appellant.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no prior criminal record and has not been involved in any other criminal activity either before or after the alleged incident. The learned trial Court imposed a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment. However, the appellant has already undergone imprisonment from 23.03.2023 to 27.07.2023 and thereafter from 07.06.2024 onwards. He has also deposited the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- as imposed by the trial Court. Considering the period already served, it is submitted that this duration would suffice to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Court may reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, thereby granting him the benefit of time spent in custody.

Learned State Counsel, opposing the appellant’s prayer, would submit that considering the serious nature of the offence and the appellant’s possession of a substantial amount of counterfeit currency, leniency should not be shown. The recovery was made in the presence of witnesses, and the notes’ authenticity was confirmed by competent authorities. Reducing the sentence would set a wrong precedent and undermine deterrence. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal as well as request for reduction of sentence be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the entire record of the trial Court and all other relevant documents placed on record.

Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant and has confined his prayer solely to the question of reduction of sentence already undergone, this Court considers it appropriate and necessary to examine the impugned judgment of the trial Court.

In this regard, this Court has meticulously perused the impugned judgment, the reasoning recorded therein, and the evidence on record, including the statements of witnesses, documents, exhibits, and other relevant materials relied upon by the trial Court in arriving at its findings. Such examination is considered essential to ensure that the sentence imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and is just and reasonable in all circumstances of the case.

Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court, after a careful and elaborate consideration of the evidence of each material witness, has observed that the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant herein. The trial Court has meticulously examined the statements of eyewitnesses, the investigating officers, and the expert reports regarding the authenticity of the seized currency notes, as well as the relevant documentary evidence and procedural formalities followed during the investigation and seizure. Having regard to the entirety of the evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the appellant was found in possession of counterfeit currency with the requisite knowledge and intent, thereby constituting an offence under Section 489-C of the IPC.

In light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error, illegality, or infirmity in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the said offence, and its findings on conviction are fully justified and sustainable, which does not call for any intereference.

As regards the quantum of sentence, it is observed that the appellant has been in custody from 23.03.2023 to 27.07.2023 and thereafter from 07.06.2024, and has, therefore, already undergone imprisonment for a total period of 01 year, 08 months, and 05 days. The appellant has also complied with the monetary component of the sentence by depositing the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- as imposed by the trial Court. Considering the period of incarceration already served, the appellant’s lack of prior criminal record, and the principle that the punishment should meet the ends of justice without being unduly harsh, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence already undergone by the appellant is sufficient.

Accordingly, it is held that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, and no further custodial sentence shall be required beyond this period.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed, as the trial Court has rightly concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the sentence imposed upon the appellant under the said provision is hereby modified and reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, in view of the period of custody already served.

It is further stated that the appellant is currently in jail. In light of the modification of the sentence, the appellant shall be released forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case.

Let a copy of this judgment, along with the original record of the trial Court, be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately for necessary information and compliance.