Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1196 (PNJ)

Ram Saran v. State Of Punjab

2004-10-27

JASBIR SINGH

body2004
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Vide judgment and order dated 26.2.1991, appellant was convicted for commission of offences under Section 5(i)(c) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Section 409 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo RI for ten months under Section 5(i)(c) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 409 IPC. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently and he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for both the charges. In default, he was to further undergo RI for two months. 2. It was case of the prosecution that appellant was working as Diet Clerk in the Northern Railways, Ferozepur Cantt. in the year 1982-1983. His duty was to receive money from patients, other than Railway employees, for their treatment in Railway Hospital, Ferozepur Cantt. He was bound to deposit that amount with the Divisional Cash Office or with the Superintendent, Northern Railways, Ferozepur Cantt. It was allegation against him that he had received a total sum of Rs. 996/- from many patients between 1.9.1983 and 7.11.1983 but failed to deposit the same with the officers, as mentioned above. It was alleged that he had mis-appropriated that amount. 3. On the basis of above mentioned allegations, FIR bearing No. RC No. 33/84, SPE/CBI was recorded at Chandigarh. After investigation, final report was prepared and put in Court for trial. Petitioner was charge-sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution then led evidence to prove his guilt and on completion of prosecution evidence statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he refuted all the allegations appearing against him in prosecution evidence and claimed false implication. He also led evidence in defence. Trial court, on appraisal of evidence, as led by both the parties, found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him as found mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 4. It is not necessary to refer to further details as Mr. Ghai appearing for the appellant has addressed arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. Counsel states that appellant is the only bread winner for his family and the matter pertains to the year 1982-1983. He continued to face agony of trial which comes to an end only on 26.2.1991. Thereafter, his appeal is pending. During this period, appellant might have suffered financially and mentally as well. Counsel states that appellant is the only bread winner for his family and the matter pertains to the year 1982-1983. He continued to face agony of trial which comes to an end only on 26.2.1991. Thereafter, his appeal is pending. During this period, appellant might have suffered financially and mentally as well. He might have lost his job. During trial, he had also remained in jail for some time. Counsel further submits that in this manner, he met with sufficient punishment for alleged offences committed by him. Counsel further states that otherwise also, most of the witnesses were disbelieved by the trial Court and acceptance of money by the appellant is not fully proved. Counsel prays that under these circumstances, sentence be reduced to the one already undergone by the appellant. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 806 and many other judgments. 5. Arguments raised by counsel for the appellant have vehemently been opposed by Mr. Bhardwaj, appearing for the State of Punjab. He, by referring to the evidence on record, states that guilt of the appellant is proved on record and punishment awarded to him is rather on the lower side. He prays that appeal, having no substance, deserves to be dismissed. Counsel for the parties heard. 6. Purpose of criminal law justice is not only to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform oneself. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2000(3) RCR(Crl.) 561 (SC) : 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161 had opined that in appropriate cases, reformative approach is required to be adopted. 8. In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998(1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their Lordships of Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 9. Similar is the opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 600. In that case in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted. 9. Similar is the opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 600. In that case in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted. However, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. 10. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 467. 11. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(10) Supreme Court Cases 486, wherein, in a case under Section 304 Part II IPC, leniency was shown to the accused in that case and they were ordered to be released on probation. 12. To support his contention, counsel for the appellant has also relied upon judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577, wherein, after convicting the appellant- accused therein for commission of an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in para No. 12 as under :- "12. Even so on the facts and in the circumstances of this case we do not feel persuaded to let off the appellant with an imposition of fine only. We, however, thought that sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in this case. We were informed at the Bar and an affidavit sworn by the appellants wife was also filed before us to the effect that the appellant was in jail for about nine months as an under trial prisoner and for about four months after conviction. Thus he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about a year and a month. The occurrence took place more than a decade ago. The appellant had to pass this long ordeal all these years both mentally and financially. Considering, therefore, the totality of the circumstances while maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default two years further imprisonment, we reduce his substantive term of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintain the conviction of the appellant not under Part I of Section 304 of the Penal Code but under Part II." 13. Considering, therefore, the totality of the circumstances while maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default two years further imprisonment, we reduce his substantive term of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintain the conviction of the appellant not under Part I of Section 304 of the Penal Code but under Part II." 13. Similarly, their Lordships of Supreme Court in Tarsem Lals case (supra), where appellant was convicted for commission of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, upholding his conviction have opined as under :- "Learned counsel ultimately contended that this appellant a Patwari who had faced the trial and pendency of this appeal for about 14 years will now have to go to jail for serving out a part of this sentence which remained to be served. It is no doubt true that having been convicted for these offences the appellant is bound to lose his service. It was also stated that he had served out some sentence of the imprisonment also. The incident is of 1972 and we are now in 1987. In view of these circumstances in our opinion the sentence of the imprisonment already undergone and sentence of fine imposed by Honble the trial Court will meet the ends of justice. Consequently appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, his sentence as regards sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone but the sentence of fine is maintained. He is on bail. His bail bond shall be cancelled; if he had not paid the amount of fine he shall do so within one month from today." 14. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of judgments as referred to above, conviction of appellant is upheld, however, sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by him. 15. With above mentioned modification, this appeal stands disposed of.