Appeal against conviction and sentence for possession of counterfeit currency under Section 489-C IPC. Conviction affirmed; sentence modified to restrict substantive term to time already served in custody.
Substantive sentence restricted to time spent in custody; fine and default clause maintained; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
����������������������
�
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
���������������������������
����������������������������
Gurcharan Singh
.Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
..Respondent
Coram: ��!"#���$��%&��������'�(�$�����'�&'��
Present: Mr. Kuldeep V. Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant Mr. D.S.Virk, AAG,Punjab for the respondent)State
��'�(�$����'�&'��)�%���$�#�
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.1.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for 5 years besides payment of fine amounting to Rs. 1000/) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 489)C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,''IPC”) are under challenge in this appeal brought by convict Gurcharan Singh under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short,''Cr.P.C.”).
State is contesting the appeal.
Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
�
����������������������
Fact situation constituting the case of the prosecution is that the convict/appellant was found to have in his possession 37 counterfeit currency notes in the denomination of � 1000/) each and 76 counterfeit currency notes in the denomination of � 500/) each, which on examination were found to be fake.
After conclusion of investigation, a report in terms of Section 173(2), Cr.P.C., was presented before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session as the offences involved therein were triable exclusively by the Court of Session.
Learned trial Court on hearing the prosecution and the defence found grounds to exist to presume commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 489)B and 489)C, IPC, by the convict/appellant and charged him accordingly. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, convict/appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., and was called upon to enter upon his defence. He examined two witnesses in his defence.
On hearing the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove guilt of the convict/appellant punishable under Sections 420 and 489) B, IPC, but it was able to prove it as regards offence under Section 489)C, IPC, and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the convict/appellant as herein aforestated.
Learned counsel for the appellant has stated at the very outset that the appellant does not contest the findings of conviction
Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
�
����������������������
recorded by the learned trial Court but prays for leniency as regards the quantum of sentence on the plea that he is in advance stage of his life and is the first offender and that he has already faced the agony of investigation and trial since registration of the first information report on 18.10.2010.
The submission put up on behalf of the appellant as regards quantum of sentence seems to be an reasonable. The appellant has been facing agony of investigation and protracted trial and consequent proceedings since the year 2010 and has also reached the ripened stage of his life. As per the custody certificate filed on behalf of the respondent)State, the appellant has already served sentence of 3 years 6 months and 14 days, including remission, out of the total sentence of 5 years awarded to him by the trial Court. In the circumstances, the judgment of conviction dated 25.1.2012 is maintained and affirmed but order of sentence is modified and the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is restricted to the period already spent by him in custody. However, the sentence as regards fine and default clause is maintained.
With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence,
the appeal fails and is dismissed.
March 20,2014 (MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN) nk ��������������� JUDGE
Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to a reduction in the substantive sentence considering advanced age, first offence status, and time spent in custody.
Whether the appeal against conviction and sentencing requires affirmation or modification of the quantum of punishment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurcharan Singh
State of Punjab
Mahavir S. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
