JUDGMENT : Om Prakash-VII, J. 1. Present jail appeal has been preferred by accused appellant Abdul Gaffar against judgment and order dated 30.10.2010 passed by Additional District Judge / Fast Track Court No.2, Bijnor in Session Trial No. 804 of 2008 convicting and sentencing appellant for the offence punishable under Section 489-B I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-and for the offence under Section 489-C I.P.C. to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-In case of default in payment of fine, appellant was also to undergo one year's additional imprisonment. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, as unfolded by informant S.S.I. Amar Singh, police station Kotwali Shahr, District Bijnor is that on 10.06.2008 he alongwith other police personnel were involved in checking of suspicious vehicles and persons at roadways bus stand, Bijnor. An information from informer was received that a Bengali had come with counterfeit currency and will carry the same to village Mewa Nevada, Police Station Sehora. As per said information, police party reached at the northern gate of bus stand. Informer, pointing out a person standing there in lungi, said that he was same person, who was having counterfeit currency. The police party surrounded him and apprehended him at 08:50 p.m. from the northern gate of said bus stand. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Abdul Gaffar son of Samir Uddin village Amamilki, Police Station Kaliya Chak, District Maldah (West Bengal). On search, a black colour bag having a pant shirt along with other articles and a yellow colour polythene, in which 198 counterfeit currency in the denomination of Rs. 500/-, were recovered and Rs. 31,100/-were also recovered. He confessed that he brought those counterfeit currencies from West Bengal and was going to deliver the same at village Mewa Nevada. Police party tried to obtain public witness but nobody was ready for the same. Keeping in same polythene, recovered counterfeit currencies were sealed in a cloth. Details of said notes were also noted down. Recovery memo was prepared. Arrested person alongwith seized property was deposited in the police station and said case crime was registered. 3. During investigation, seized currency notes were sent for examination to Kanpur and thereafter to Currency Printing Press, Nasik (Maharashtra), where said notes were found counterfeit. After investigation charge-sheet was filed. Details of said notes were also noted down. Recovery memo was prepared. Arrested person alongwith seized property was deposited in the police station and said case crime was registered. 3. During investigation, seized currency notes were sent for examination to Kanpur and thereafter to Currency Printing Press, Nasik (Maharashtra), where said notes were found counterfeit. After investigation charge-sheet was filed. Concerned Magistrate took cognizance and case being exclusively triable by sessions court, was committed to Court of Sessions. 4. The appellant was charged by the Court of Sessions under Sections 489-B IPC and 489-C IPC. Appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. Trial proceeded and in order to prove the charges on behalf of prosecution, seven witnesses, namely, PW-1 S.I. Subodh Kumar Saxena, PW-2 S.S.I. Amar Singh, PW-3 Salik Ram, PW-4 Constable Umendra Kumar, PW-5 S.I. Brij Pal Singh, PW-6 S.M. Pandit and PW-7 Sanya Dubey, Inspector C.B.I. New Delhi, were examined. 6. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied entire allegations levelled by prosecution and stated that he was falsely implicated and witnesses made false deposition. He was lifted from Gurgaon Palan Bihar C-2 and roped in this case falsely. 7. In defence, accused appellant has filed Paper No. 85-kha in support of his case. 8. Having heard learned counsel for parties and going through record, trial court found that prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced accused appellant. Hence this appeal. 9. We have heard Shri Noor Mohammad, learned counsel for appellant and Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA for State at length. 10. Only submission on behalf of appellant was that minimum sentence for the offence under Section 489-B IPC is of ten years. Trial Court has imposed sentence upon accused appellant for the offence under Section 489-B IPC for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-It was also submitted that neither accused appellant is habitual offender nor was convicted in any other case. Trial Court has imposed sentence upon accused appellant for the offence under Section 489-B IPC for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-It was also submitted that neither accused appellant is habitual offender nor was convicted in any other case. Thus, placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2014, decided on 23.2.2016 by a Division Bench, it was submitted by learned counsel for the accused appellant that sentence awarded to the accused appellant by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order be modified and accused appellant be released in this matter on the basis of imprisonment already undergone. It was next submitted that in this case offence is said to have been committed on 10.6.2008 and accused appellant is in jail from the date of offence and has served out more than ten years imprisonment. 11. On the other hand, learned AGA supporting the findings recorded by trial court in the impugned judgment and order submitted that there in no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Act done by Accused-appellant clearly comes under the purview of Sections 489-B IPC and 489-C IPC as he was involved in trafficking of fake currencies. Since act of appellant was to jeopardize the economic condition of country, no leniency is required in the matter. 12. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. 13. Since learned counsel for accused appellant did not challenge findings recorded by trial court in the impugned judgment and order regarding guilt of accused appellant for the offence under Sections 489-B IPC and 489-C IPC and confined his argument only to the sentence awarded by trial court to accused appellant, we do not propose to scrutinize the entire evidence minutely in this regard. However, a perusal of entire record shows that trial Court has considered in detail the entire evidence available on record regarding guilt of accused appellant for the offence under Sections 489-B IPC and 489-C IPC and keeping in view the offence committed by accused appellant, we are also of the opinion that prosecution was able to establish the guilt of accused appellant for the aforesaid offences beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the trial court to constitute offences under Sections 489-B IPC and 489-C IPC against accused appellant are correct and the same do not warrant interference by this Court. 14. So far as submission regarding sentence is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. 15. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is the obligation of the court to constantly remind itself that the right of the victim, and be it said, on certain occasions the person aggrieved as well as the society at large can be victims, never be marginalized. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Vide : (Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 ]. 16. In view of the above propositions of law, the paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. 17. 16. In view of the above propositions of law, the paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. 17. The Apex Court in the case of G. V. Siddaramesh Versus of State of Karnataka; 2010 (87) AIC 43 (SC), while allowing the appeal of the appellant, altered the sentence. Paragraph 31 of the said judgment is reproduced below: "31. In conclusion, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C. However, his sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Courts below appears to us to be excessive. The appellant is a young man and has already undergone 6 years of imprisonment after being convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. We are of the view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. We accordingly, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B, I.P.C., reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The other conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are confirmed." 18. Applying the principles laid down by Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to totality of facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that in this case accused appellant faced trial for the offence under Sections 489-B IPC and 489-C IPC, he is in jail and has served-out more than ten years sentence and also keeping in view the fact that on perusal of entire evidence, we do not find any evidence to connect the appellant with international criminals or with any terrorist organizations and also the fact that appellant was aged about 58 years at the time of commission of offence and now will be about 68 years, we are of the opinion that punishment of imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 489-B IPC awarded by trial court vide impugned judgment and order in the present matter is excessive, exorbitant and harsh. This is first conviction of appellant. This is first conviction of appellant. Hence, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would meet if sentence awarded to accused appellant under Section 489-B IPC by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order is modified and reduced to fourteen years. 19. In the light of foregoing discussions, this jail appeal is liable to be allowed in part and conviction of appellant under Sections 489-B IPC and 489-C IPC is liable to be upheld. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2010 is liable to be modified to the extent, as discussed above. 20. Accordingly, jail appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of accused appellant under Sections 489-B IPC and 489-C IPC is upheld but sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 489B IPC awarded to accused appellant vide impugned judgment and order shall stand modified and reduced to fourteen years. Fine imposed upon accused-appellant for the offence under Section 489-B I.P.C. is maintained. However, as regards sentence awarded to accused appellant for the offence under Section 489-C IPC is concerned, no interference is required in this regard. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to Sessions Judge, Bijnor for compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court. Copy of this order be also supplied to accused-appellant through concerned Jail Superintendent.