Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 407 (PNJ)

Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab

2000-04-17

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 14.7.1988, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, who affirmed the conviction of the petitioner, but reduced the sentence to RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months. Further, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed that the substantive sentence of the petitioner shall run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment awarded in the connected case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as Cashier in the Co-op. Agricultural Services Society, Karhali, during 1974-75 and 1976, when he received certain amounts from some members by way of return of the loan taken by them from the Society. The petitioner did not account for the same. An audit conducted by Lilu Ram, PW-3, for the period 1.7.1975 to 30.6.1976 revealed that the petitioner had committed embezzlement of money belonging to the Society. Thereupon, Inspector of Co-op. Societies Karnail Singh, PW-3, made a report to the Assistant Registrar, Patiala, that the petitioner had received Rs. 23,401.84 from the members and had entered the same in their pass books, but had not deposited the same in the account of the Society. He also made a report that another sum of Rs. 32,182.85 was found to be cash in hand with the petitioner, which was not deposited in the account of the Society and had been personally used by the petitioner. The information was sent to the police and formal FIR was registered. On completion of the investigation of the case, the petitioner was challaned under section 408, Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Magistrate supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and framed a charge under section 408, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. The charge was read over and explained to the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. 5. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The petitioner denied those circumstances and stated that he was innocent. 6. 5. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The petitioner denied those circumstances and stated that he was innocent. 6. The learned Magistrate believed the story of the prosecution and convicted the petitioner under section 408, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. The petitioner filed an appeal and his substantive sentence was reduced to six months. Still not satisfied with the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, the present revision. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgments and the grounds of revision and am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the Courts below so far as the conviction aspect is concerned. The sole point which survives for determination is what sentence should be awarded to the petitioner, after a lapse of 24 years as the occurrence took place in the years 1974-75 and 1976. The petitioner is suffering the agony of criminal trial for the last 24 years and in the opinion of this Court, the sentence which has already been undergone by the petitioner shall suffice the purpose of interest of justice. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of. Revision dismissed.