Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahees Khan vs The State Of M.P. on 6 March, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5157
1 CRA-888-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 888 of 2006
RAHEES KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Shobhendra Kumar Tiwari - advocate for the appellant.
Shri K.S.Tomar - PP for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred against the judgment dated
13.11.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Guna (MP) in Sessions trial No. 201 of
2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 489-
B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced 1 year's R.I. with usual
default stipulation.
2. As per the prosecution story on 02.04.2006 at about 8 PM, complainant
Moharbai (PW4) was selling vegetables in the market. At that time, the present
appellant came there and purchased some vegetables and gave her a note of
Rs.100/- which was counterfeit. When she complained to him, then appellant tried
to flee away from the spot, but anyway, he was caught and on being asked, he
disclosed his name as Rahees Khan. Complainant lodged FIR at PS Kotwali Guna.
Accordingly, an offence has been registered and the appellant was arrested. During
search, three counterfeit notes were recovered from his possession, which were
sent for examination to the Bank Press at Dewas, and as per the report, said notes
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5157
2 CRA-888-2006
were found to be counterfeit.
3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against
the appellant. The trial court has framed charge under Section 489-B of IPC
against the appellant. The appellant denied the aforesaid charges and pleaded
innocence. The trial court, after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offence.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal on several grounds, but during the argument, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the appellant does not want to press this Criminal Appeal
on merit and is not assailing the conviction and only assailing the sentence part of
the judgment. He has confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of the
sentence and his sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to
the period already undergone by him, as the appellant has already suffered jail
incarceration for more than eight months and he is facing trial for the last 19 years.
Appellant is a poor person and has no criminal background. Therefore, his jail
sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the appeal
and prays for its rejection by submitting that the Court below has rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellant and the sentence in question is sufficient.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
7. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant,
although the conviction has not been challenged, but a bare perusal of the evidence
available on record, also justifies the judgment of conviction passed by the Court
below.
8. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the submissions made
by learned counsel for the appellant appear to be just and proper. The present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5157
3 CRA-888-2006
appellant remained in custody for more than eight months and he has suffered jail
incarceration from 09.04.2006 to 13.11.2006. At the time of the incident, the
present appellant was 35 years of age. Now he is turned about 55 years old.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail
sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
9. Considering the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed by maintaining the
conviction of the appellant, but reducing his jail sentence to the period already
undergone by him. Appellant is on bail, his surety and bail bond stand
discharged.
10. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the trial
Court is also affirmed.
11. Let a copy of this order along with record of the Court below be sent
back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
