Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 554 (PNJ)

Kuldip Singh v. State of Haryana

2000-05-23

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by Kuldip Singh (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri dated 29.11.1986 and 6.12.1986 respectively. The petitioner was held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 409/465 and 471, Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigours imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. He was further awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 465/471, Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The revision also assails the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala dated 21.7.1988 confirming the findings of the trial Court. 2. The relevant facts are that the case was registered on the letter of Shri Jai Singh, Administrator, Municipal Committee, Chhachhrauli dated 6.3.1982. It had been mentioned that the petitioner was employed in the Municipal Committee, Chhachhrauli as Tehbazari Moharrir. He was also incharge of Central Octroi Barrier during the period January, 1980 to July, 1980. It was his duty to receive rent of municipal buildings, teh bazari fee, octroi tax and other income on behalf of the Municipal Committee. He was to issue the receipts. It had been alleged that during this period the petitioner along with Secretary, Avtar Singh embezzled the municipal funds. The petitioner was issued receipt book Nos. 100 and 1937 and teh bazari ticket books. He tampered with the receipts pertaining to receipt book No. 100 and embezzled an amount of Rs. 864/-. He is also alleged to have tampered with the receipt No. 18/100 dated 19.5.1980. It was issued for Rs. 40/-. It was tampered with Rs. 6/- and Rs. 34/- were embezzled. Similarly, he is asserted to have tampered receipt No. 36/100 dated 10.6.1980 which was issued for an amount of Rs. 260/- and he embezzled Rs. 130/-. Similarly, he tampered with receipt No. 37/100. He charged Rs. 840/- and deposited Rs. 140/- only. Furthermore, it is asserted that receipt No. 38/100 was found missing from receipt book No. 100 and that he had torn eight teh bazari tickets. These facts came to notice when depositors attended the office of the Municipal Committee to deposit the amount for the subsequent period. 3. He charged Rs. 840/- and deposited Rs. 140/- only. Furthermore, it is asserted that receipt No. 38/100 was found missing from receipt book No. 100 and that he had torn eight teh bazari tickets. These facts came to notice when depositors attended the office of the Municipal Committee to deposit the amount for the subsequent period. 3. Report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed against the petitioner and one Avtar Singh. On 7.11.1983 Avtar Singh was discharged. Charges were framed only against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409/465 and 471, Indian Penal Code. 4. Both the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that it is established that the petitioner had committed the above said offences and the impugned judgments and the order of sentence followed. 5. Only two receipts namely receipt No. 37/100 and receipt No. 36/100 remained subject matter of controversy. Sum and substance of the same has already been given above. The same are to the following effect :- 2. 36/100 dt. 10.6.80 Sh. Krishan Singh s/o Sh. Narain Singh Rent of shops 8/79 @ Rs. 65/- P.M. Rs. 260/- 130/- 130/- Amount in figures was tampered with and overwritten as Rs. 260/- but in words it was tampered with and overwritten as Rs. 130/- 3. 37/100 dt. 10.6.80 Sh. Mulkh Raj s/o Sh. Lal Singh Rent of shops 9/79 to 3/80 @ Rs. 14/- P.M. 140/- 700/- Amount in figures was tampered with and overwritten as Rs. 840/- but in words it was tampered with and overwritten as Rs. 140/-. 6. When the matter was listed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Tejinder Singh was the witness regarding receipt No. 36/100. He had deposed that petitioner had issued a receipt to him regarding the amount paid by him. The receipt was taken by Avtar Singh. Kishan Singh PW-7 is another witness pertaining to receipt No. 36/100. He also stated regarding issuance of the receipt by the petitioner. 8. Whenever the oral evidence of the witnesses has to be scrutinized, the same has to be read in context with totality of facts. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Kishan Singh PW-7 is another witness pertaining to receipt No. 36/100. He also stated regarding issuance of the receipt by the petitioner. 8. Whenever the oral evidence of the witnesses has to be scrutinized, the same has to be read in context with totality of facts. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Herein it is not only the statements of these witnesses that have to be looked into but it has to be read with admission of the petitioner in the application Ex. PW-19/C. The same had been written by the petitioner in his own hand. Admittedly it is written by him in which he admits that he could not deposit the amount and the receipts and that there was deficiency in the deposits. Merely stating that it was so done at the instance of the Secretary of the Committee, is an after-thought. This admission read with the statements of the witnesses referred to above permit the conclusion that the petitioner had issued the receipts and embezzled the amount and that he had also changed the figures particularly with respect to the amounts received. Consequently, there is no ground to take a different view. The revision petition on its merits must fail. 9. However, it goes without saying that the revision petition is pending in this Court for the past 12 years. The petitioner has already undergone about three weeks of the sentence before he was admitted to bail by this Court. Keeping in view the period that has elapsed, the interest of justice do requires that sentence should be reduced. The interest of justice shall be fully met, if is reduced to the one already undergone. Order is made accordingly. 10. For these reasons, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. But the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone with no interference on the quantum of fine imposed. Revision dismissed.