Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 369 (PNJ)

Darbari Lal v. State of Punjab

2004-03-24

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Darbari Lal and Baldev Singh the two petitioners herein were convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur vide impugned judgment dated 29.11.1986 as under :- Darbari Lal, U/s 409 Indian Penal Code, RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine to further under go RI for 1 month. U/s 467/468 Indian Penal Code, RI for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for each offence. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month for each offence. All sentences to run concurrently. Baldev Singh, U/s 409 Indian Penal Code, RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month. 2. They, thereafter, filed the appeal and the same also stands dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 15.7.1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Aggrieved by both the judgments of conviction, the petitioners have now filed the revision petition. 3. Filtering the unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution in short is that Mohinder Partap Singh, Inspector, C.I.D., Chandigarh got the report Ex.PA lodged with the concerned police alleging therein that the present two petitioners alongwith one Joga Singh (since declared Proclaimed Offender) were employees of the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation, Phillaur Branch (for the short the Corporation) during the period from 1.10.77 to 31.12.1977 as Salesmen. A letter of the Punjab Government No. 6366-Agri. IV.77/20740 dated 3.10.77 was issued in which it was ordered that for the sale of Zinc sulphate and other phosphatic fertilizer, subsidy was to be granted at the time of sale and it was further ordered that the complete name and the address of the purchasers be recorded and his signatures/thumb impression be also obtained so the fact of subsidy could be verified from them. Thereafter, the bills were to be sent for sanction to the Chief Agricultural Officer. Another letter No. 6988-89/18.21KW dated 18.10.1977 was also issued by the Director of Agriculture, Punjab in which it was ordered that fertilizer not more than Rs. 1000/- be sold against cash sales of fertilizer to one consumer. The Government received the complaints that the branches of the Corporation had sold the fertilizer in violation of the above said instructions. Another letter No. 6988-89/18.21KW dated 18.10.1977 was also issued by the Director of Agriculture, Punjab in which it was ordered that fertilizer not more than Rs. 1000/- be sold against cash sales of fertilizer to one consumer. The Government received the complaints that the branches of the Corporation had sold the fertilizer in violation of the above said instructions. The complaint was then referred to Mohinder Partap Singh, Inspector, C.I.D. who get the case registered. During investigation it revealed that Darbari Lal, petitioner had forged four cash-memos bearing Nos. 55376, 56380, 56387, 56379 and as such misappropriated the amount of the said cash-memos to his own use instead of giving subsidy to the Government. The said amount comes to Rs. 1263.55 ps. The investigation further revealed that Baldev Singh, petitioner had also forged the cash-memos bearing Nos. 56355, 57226, 57262. He had also misappropriated Rs. 802.35 ps which was the subsidy amount. Similarly Jog Singh (since declared Proclaimed Offender) has also forged five receipts and had misappropriated certain amount. The investigation further revealed that Darbari Lal, petitioner had issued 8 cash-memos in violation of letter dated 18.10.77 and similarly Baldev Singh, petitioner had also issued 18 receipts whereas Joga Singh had also violated the aforesaid letter. After completion of the investigation, the present two petitioners were challaned. 4. Both the petitioners were charged under Sections 409, 467, 468 Indian Penal Code by the trial court. After appreciating the entire evidence and the defence, both the petitioners were convicted by the trial court. As stated above, their appeal also stands dismissed. 5. I have heard Mr. A.S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.S. Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire records. 6. Mr. Sandhu has assailed both the impugned judgments contending vehemently that there is a gross illegality on the face of it as the allegations against each of the petitioner are separate being of different dates and year and as such both the petitioners could not be tried together at the same trial, consequently the whole of the trial is vitiated. The petitioners deserve acquittal on this count alone, the learned counsel so contends. 7. The petitioners deserve acquittal on this count alone, the learned counsel so contends. 7. The other argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is nothing on record to show that the instructions of the Government for not selling the fertilizer of the value of more than Rs. 1000/- to an independent person were ever brought to the notice of the petitioners and therefore, the present petitioners cannot be now connected with the allegations and in the absence of this evidence, they cannot be convicted for the charges framed against them. 8. In the alternative, the learned counsel asks for reduction in the sentence on the ground that the present case relates to the year 1979 and the allegations are of the year 1977; that both the petitioners who were of the age of 40 years at the time of registration of the case have already suffered the agony of more than 25 years; that the petitioners have also lost the job; they also remained in custody for about 15 days (about 7 days during trial and another 7/8 days during the pendency of present revision petition) and as such they deserve a sympathetic tilt with regard to quantum of sentence. 9. Refuting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned State Counsel submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments vide which the present petitioners have earned conviction. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the learned State Counsel contends that the learned trial court has already shown leniency to both the petitioners in this regard and as such they do not deserve any further relaxation in this regard. 10. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the conviction of both the petitioners deserves to be maintained. 11. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in my considered view, merits rejection. As a general rule, as is clear from section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), for every distinct offence of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately. But there are exceptions to this general principle and these exceptions are contained in sections 219, 220 and 223 of the Code. But there are exceptions to this general principle and these exceptions are contained in sections 219, 220 and 223 of the Code. According to section 220 of the Code, if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. According to section 223(a) of the Code, the persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together. In the present case, the petitioners were employed and posted in Corporation during the period 1.10.77 to 31.12.77 as Salesmen and during this tenure the offences have been committed by both of them and as such the offences would come within the ambit of term "same transaction". So the argument advanced in this regard is hereby rejected. 12. The second contention too is having no substance in it. The instructions contained in letter dated 18.10.1977 were proved by Ajmer Singh PW10. According to the said letter subsidy on the purchase of fertilizer upto Rs. 1000/- was to be given to the farmers. Existence of the common course of business is to be presumed under section 114 of the Evidence Act. The present petitioners were Salesmen of the Corporation and they are bound to know the instructions regarding the sale of the fertilizer issued by their department for supply of goods. The argument advanced in this regard by the learned counsel for the petitioners is also rejected. 13. I have gone through the entire evidence recorded by the trial Court minutely. I do not find any gross irregularity or any manifest illegality on any count which would call for the interference of this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the conviction as recorded by the trial Court and thereafter, maintained by the appellate court qua both the petitioners on all the counts, is hereby reaffirmed. 14. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, As stated on behalf of the petitioners and not disputed by the State Counsel that both the petitioners have already undergone a few days of their substantive sentence. The maximum sentence awarded to Darbari Lal petitioner is 9 months under sections 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code. The maximum sentence awarded to Darbari Lal petitioner is 9 months under sections 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code. Under Section 409 Indian Penal Code, both the petitioners stand sentenced for 6 months. They have already lost their jobs. As per the allegations Darbari Lal, petitioner had misappropriated Rs. 1263.55 ps. whereas Baldev Singh, petitioner had misappropriated Rs. 802.35 ps. The present case relates to year 1979 and by now the petitioners have suffered the agony of protracted trial of long 25 years. The present revision petition is also being heard after the lapse of 15 years. Both the petitioners were of the age of 40 years at the time of their conviction as is clear from the impugned judgment of the trial court. The petitioners must have been absorbed by now in the mainstream of society being useful citizens and sending them to the jail once again at this juncture would not serve any purpose. 15. With regard to the facts of the case and keeping an equitable balance, in my view, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence imposed upon by the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone with an enhancement in the quantum of fine from Rs. 200/- awarded under section 409 Indian Penal Code to both the petitioners to Rs. 2000/- each. Since Darbari Lal, petitioner has also been awarded a fine of Rs. 100/- under sections 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code, the same shall also be enhanced to Rs. 2000/-. For clarity sake, it may be mentioned here that so far as Darbari Lal, petitioner is concerned, the amount has been enhanced to Rs. 4000/- on all the counts whereas qua Baldev Singh it has been enhanced to Rs. 2000/- under section 409 Indian Penal Code. It is further made clear that in case the fine already awarded by the trial Court is deposited by the present petitioners, the same shall be adjusted towards the enhanced amount. Ordered accordingly. The petitioners shall deposit the enhanced amount with the trial court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment failing which they shall undergo the complete sentence as awarded by the trial court. 16. In case of deposit of the fine, the same shall be transferred to the proper head by the trial Court. 17. 16. In case of deposit of the fine, the same shall be transferred to the proper head by the trial Court. 17. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.