Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 114 (PNJ)

Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-01-22

V.M.JAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner, against the judgment of the courts below, whereby the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate held the accused petitioner guilty under Section 408 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months, while learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while upholding the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 408 Indian Penal Code, had reduced the sentence to one year besides payment of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 3 months. 2. The State had presented challan under Sections 408, 465 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, against as many as 7 persons, including accused petitioner Gurmit Singh. The FIR was registered on the basis of the letters Ex. PB and Indian Penal Code written by Ram Dial, Inspector, Cooperative Society, regarding the embezzlement made by accused from the Cooperative Society account Ramgarh. After investigation, challan was submitted in the court. All the seven accused were charged for the offences under Sections 408, 465 and 120-B Indian Penal Code. Prosecution led its evidence. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, were recorded. Thereafter, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, found that charge of embezzlement under Section 408 Indian Penal Code was proved against accused Gurmit Singh, having misappropriated Rs. 40,000/- and accused Lakha Singh, for having misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,30,276.62 of the Cooperative Society. Since accused Lakha Singh had expired during trial, the case against him had abated. However, accused Gurmit Singh was convicted under Section 408 Indian Penal Code, whereas remaining 5 accused namely Balwinder Singh, Bishna, Jarnail Singh, Makhan Singh and Avtar Singh were acquitted as no case was made out against them. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, after holding the accused petitioner guilty under Section 408 Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years and pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In the appeal filed by Gurmit Singh, his conviction under Section 408 Indian Penal Code was upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, but the embezzled amount was reduced from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 15,055/- and the sentence was reduced from two years RI to 1 year RI, besides payment of fine of Rs. 500/-. 500/-. In the appeal filed by Gurmit Singh, his conviction under Section 408 Indian Penal Code was upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, but the embezzled amount was reduced from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 15,055/- and the sentence was reduced from two years RI to 1 year RI, besides payment of fine of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved against the same, Gurmit Singh, accused petitioner filed the present revision petition in this court. 3. At the time of arguments, no one came present on behalf of the petitioner, even though on the previous date, Shri H.S. Sirohi, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and had sought time for arguments. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record with his assistance. 5. The allegations against accused petitioner Gurmit Singh are that he was entrusted with the fertilizers worth Rs. 43,206.12 when he was working as a Salesman in Model Ramgarh Cooperative Agricultural Services Society, Ramgarh. Ram Dial, PW1 stated that on checking cash book, it was found that Lakha Singh, PW had shown an advance of Rs. 40,000/- to Gurmit Singh and Gurmit Singh had signed the said entry. Furthermore, Gurdip Singh PW had stated that on 30.8.1981, he had physically checked the position of stock register in the presence of Gurmit Singh, petitioner and had submitted that physical verification report, which was also signed by Gurmit Singh, Salesman. According to him 71 tonnes of Urea should have been in the stock register. Furthermore, Lakhbir Singh, PW had stated that with the help of Gurdip Singh Cheema, he had checked the records of the society and found an embezzlement of Rs. 40,000/- in the sale of the fertilizer account by Lakha Singh. He further deposed that this amount of Rs. 40,000/- had been shown as advance to Gurmit Singh, accused. The evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the embezzlement of Rs. 40,000/- by accused petitioner Gurmit Singh found corroboration from the order of the Arbitrator, Ex. DA, vide which it was found that Rs. 40,000/- was due from Gurmit Singh against the account of fertilizers and that the sum of Rs. 25,000/- had already been accounted for and still Rs. 15,300/- was found due against accused petitioner Gurmit Singh. As per the copy of the order Ex. DA, vide which it was found that Rs. 40,000/- was due from Gurmit Singh against the account of fertilizers and that the sum of Rs. 25,000/- had already been accounted for and still Rs. 15,300/- was found due against accused petitioner Gurmit Singh. As per the copy of the order Ex. DB, passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), the disputed amount was Rs. 15,055/-, inasmuch as Rs. 15,300/- were already deposited with the Ramgarh Branch of Kapurthala Cooperative Central Bank. Since Gurmit Singh, petitioner was working as Salesman, Rs. 40,000/- was due from him regarding the cost of fertilizers and he had failed to account for the same and even if depositing Rs. 25,300/- was taken into consideration, still Rs. 15,055/- was outstanding against accused petition Gurmit Singh. Based on this evidence led by the parties, it was found by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the evidence on record proved that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was correctly shows against Gurmit Singh against the costs of fertilizers, out of which Rs. 25300/- were already deposited by Gurmit Singh in the bank, as found by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) and that even now a sum of Rs. 15,055/- was still due from Gurmit Singh, which amount to he had not accounted for and had embezzled the said amount of Rs. 15,055/-. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge accordingly upheld the conviction of accused petitioner Gurmit Singh under Section 408 Indian Penal Code for having embezzled amount of Rs. 15,055/-. 6. After going through the entire record and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent State, in my opinion, courts below had rightly held accused petitioner Gurmit Singh, guilty under Section 408 Indian Penal Code and had rightly convicted him for the said offence. I am further of the opinion that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had rightly reduced sentence of accused petitioner Gurmit Singh from RI for 2 years to RI for 1 year besides fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months under Section 408 Indian Penal Code. I am further of the opinion that no case for interference by this Court in the present revision petition is made out, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, either on merits or on the question of sentence. I am further of the opinion that no case for interference by this Court in the present revision petition is made out, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, either on merits or on the question of sentence. Accused petitioner Gurmit Singh, while working as Salesman of the Cooperative Society, had embezzled Rs. 40,000/- out of which Rs. 25,300/- had been deposited by him in the bank and still Rs. 15,055/- were outstanding against him and he had failed to account for the same. Thus, the embezzlement of Rs. 15,055/- by accused petitioner Gurmit Singh stands fully proved on the record, for which sentence of RI for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- could not be said to be on higher side. 7. The fact as to whether arbitration proceedings were reversed by the Deputy Secretary in appeal, in my opinion, would be of relevance, especially when in the criminal proceedings, from the evidence produced on record, it stands fully proved that accused petitioner Gurmit Singh had taken Rs. 40,000/- as advance towards fertilizer account and had failed to account for Rs. 15,055/- and in this manner, the embezzlement of said amount of Rs. 15,055/- stands fully proved on record. 8. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no scope for interference by this Court in the present revision petition. In view of the above, finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.