Substantive imprisonment reduced to period undergone considering prolonged trial, first-offender status, and satisfactory conduct.

On 20 June 2004, acting on a tip-off recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1373, ASI Yadav and a police team raided a location at Dabra, Gwalior. The appellant, Arvind Singh Jat, allegedly attempted to flee and was apprehended. Two counterfeit ₹100 notes were recovered from his trouser pocket, along with a knife.

Pursuant to his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a third counterfeit ₹100 note was recovered from the house of co-accused Laxmi Narayan. The Dewas Note Press confirmed that the notes were counterfeit through its report, Ex. P/6.

After investigation, the appellant was tried in ST No. 268/2004 and convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, Gwalior, under Section 489-C IPC on 28 February 2005. He was sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000, with default stipulation.

In the appeal under Section 374 CrPC, the appellant expressly confined his challenge to the sentence and did not dispute his conviction.

Whether, despite the appellant’s conviction under Section 489-C IPC being maintained, the substantive sentence could be reduced to the period already undergone considering the age of the offence, the appellant’s period of incarceration, and other mitigating circumstances.

Whether the fine imposed by the trial court should be enhanced while reducing the substantive sentence.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine the appellant’s challenge to the sentence.

Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code governs possession of counterfeit currency or bank notes with the requisite knowledge or reason to believe that they are counterfeit and provides for penal consequences for such conduct.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was relevant to the recovery allegedly made pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statement.

In sentencing, the Court applied the principle that the punishment should be proportionate to the offence while permitting consideration of mitigating circumstances, including the prolonged pendency of proceedings, period already undergone, age, antecedents, and conduct of the accused.

The appellant accepted the conviction and sought interference only with the quantum of sentence. The Court considered that the offence had occurred in 2004 and that the appellant had faced the criminal process for nearly 23 years.

It further took into account that he had already undergone approximately 11½ months’ incarceration, was a middle-aged first-time offender with no criminal antecedents on record, and had exhibited satisfactory conduct during custody.

Balancing these mitigating factors against the nature of the counterfeit-currency offence, the Court concluded that continued substantive imprisonment was unnecessary to meet the ends of justice.

However, to account for the seriousness of the offence and balance the equities, it enhanced the fine from ₹1,000 to ₹3,000.

The fine was enhanced from ₹1,000 to ₹3,000, payable within two months; in default, the sentence imposed by the trial court would operate.

As the appellant was in custody, the Court directed that he be released forthwith if his detention was not required in any other case.

The appeal and the pending application for suspension of sentence were accordingly disposed of.