After 24-Year Litigation, P&H HC Upholds Counterfeit-Note Convictions, Cuts First Offenders’ Five-Year Terms To Time Served

The appeals arose from a common judgment dated 16 August 2005 and sentencing order dated 17 August 2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal.

The prosecution alleged that counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the appellants following a police raid and subsequent investigations.

The appellants were convicted under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and each sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

On appeal, the appellants disputed the reliability of the evidence and sought reduction of sentence, relying in particular on the time elapsed, their periods of custody, and their asserted status as first offenders.

The appeal concerning appellant No. 3 in CRA-S-1597-SB-2005 had already abated.

Section 489-C IPC was the statutory basis for the appellants’ convictions.

The judgment does not set out the provision’s ingredients or cite a judicial test governing its application.

On sentencing, the Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to modify the punishment, taking into account the circumstances identified in the judgment, including the length of time since the incident, the appellants’ periods of custody, their asserted first-offender status, and their ages.

The appellants’ counsel cited *Mohammad Asif & Ors. v. State of Karnataka*, *Jaswant Singh @ Jassa v. State of Punjab*, *Jagbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana* and *Surinder v. State of Haryana* in support of leniency; the judgment does not discuss or apply any specific principle from those authorities.

The Court reviewed the record and found the prosecution evidence “thoroughly consistent” and sufficient to sustain the convictions, affirming the trial court’s findings under Section 489-C IPC.

It did not separately address the appellants’ specific evidentiary objections.

On sentence, the Court considered that approximately 24 years had passed since the incident, the appellants had undergone between three months and three months and seven days in custody, they were treated as first offenders who had not been prosecuted for another offence during that period, and their approximate ages ranged from 47 to 57.

In view of those circumstances, it held that the sentences were harsh and that the time already served was adequate to meet the ends of justice.

It partly allowed the appeals on sentence, modified the sentencing order, and reduced each appellant’s sentence to the period already undergone.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be placed on the connected case files.