Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1584 (PNJ)

Prithvi Singh v. C. B. I.

2006-04-21

M.M.AGGARWAL

body2006
Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of two separate appeals i.e. Crl. Appeal No. 1116-SB of 2001 filed by Prithvi Singh and Crl. Appeal No. 1117-SB of 2001 filed by Shiv Kumar appellants. 2. Vide judgment dated 4.9.2001 of Special Judge, Chandigarh, Prithvi Singh and Shiv Kumar accused/appellants had been convicted for offence under Sections 120-B IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Shiv Kumar was further convicted for offence under Sections 409/471 and 477-A IPC. Both the accused had been sentenced for offence under Section 120-B IPC, to undergo RI for 1 year each and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month. For offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, they were sentenced to undergo RI for 1-1/2 year each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months each. Shiv Kumar appellant was further sentenced to RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months under Section 409 IPC. Shiv Kumar appellant was further sentenced under Section 471 IPC to undergo RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 1 month. Shiv Kumar appellant was further sentenced to undergo RI for 1-1/2 years under Section 477-A IPC. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Prosecution case against the appellants is that Shiv Kumar was working as Fee Clerk in Central Registration Department, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGI), whereas Prithvi Singh was posted and working as Internal Auditor in that department during the year 1992. Shiv Kumar as Fee Clerk was depositing lesser amount with the cashier of the Institution than collected. The modus operandi adopted was that he used to forge the office copy of the receipt for lesser amount, whereas the actual amount received was shown in original receipts which was pasted in the register. Balance amount was being misappropriated by Shiv Kumar causing loss to the Institute. The forgery had been in respect of 21 receipts vide which amount to the tune of Rs. Balance amount was being misappropriated by Shiv Kumar causing loss to the Institute. The forgery had been in respect of 21 receipts vide which amount to the tune of Rs. 21,775/- had been collected, whereas in the counter-foils of those 21 receipts, Rs. 568/- were shown and in this way, a sum of Rs. 21,207 was misappropriated by Shiv Kumar. The prosecution case further was that it was the duty of Prithvi Singh, Internal Auditor, to keep check. He had connived with Shiv Kumar. 4. After registration of the case, investigation had been taken up by the CBI and then accused-appellants were challaned. After trial, the case against them was found to be duly proved. They were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. Shri Roshan Lal, counsel for Shiv Kumar appellant, had argued that Shiv Kumar was on leave on the dates on which receipts are stated to have been issued. There was no evidence on the file to show that receipts, in fact, were issued by Shiv Kumar. 6. In this case, Shri K.L. Tageja (PW-2) had deposed that receipt books containing receipts from Serial Nos. 811301 to 811400, Nos. 828501 to 828600, Nos. 837501 to 837600, Nos. 841301 to 841400, Nos. 841901 to 842000, Nos. 842901 to 843000 and Nos. 832501 to 832600 were issued to Shiv Kumar by Prithvi Singh. He had deposed that Shiv Kumar was posted as Registration Clerk in Central Registration Deptt. PGI, Chandigarh and Prithvi Singh was Internal Auditor there. PW3 Taruna had stated that Shiv Kumar was working in Central Registration Deptt. Receipts Exhibits P-17, P-18 and P-19 were issued to her. PW4 Kamalamma in whose favour receipts were issued had deposed about the fact that Shiv Kumar was working as Clerk. He used to collect fees. She had deposed about amounts of Rs. 655/-, Rs. 700/-, Rs. 845/-, Rs. 565/- Rs. 160/-, Rs.650/- Rs. 110/- and Rs. 655/- having been deposited by her with the concerned clerk, i.e. Shiv Kumar. Saroj Thakur PW5 had also deposed that she was depositing the amount with the concerned clerk available at the Fee Counter and certain amounts had been deposited by her on different dates. The clerk had issued receipts which were pasted in the Register. 7. 110/- and Rs. 655/- having been deposited by her with the concerned clerk, i.e. Shiv Kumar. Saroj Thakur PW5 had also deposed that she was depositing the amount with the concerned clerk available at the Fee Counter and certain amounts had been deposited by her on different dates. The clerk had issued receipts which were pasted in the Register. 7. Whether Shiv Kumar was on leave for some days or not, will not be very material in this case since the receipt books had been issued to him. In certain receipts issued from these receipt books, the amount shown the original receipts was different than shown in the counter-foils lesser amount was shown and accounted for. If Shiv Kumar was on leave on a particular day, still it was his duty to see that receipts issued from the receipt books, which had been issued to him and amount collected against those receipts, are duly accounted for. Out of 21 receipts, the trial Court had definitely come to conclusion that the amount deposited by PW3 and PW4 with Shiv Kumar of certain receipts of Rs. 9240/- was duly proved, whereas against those receipts the amount accounted for was only Rs. 275/- and in this way, Rs. 8965/- had been misappropriated by Shiv Kumar by forging carbon copy of the receipts. No other view in this case is possible as far as Shiv Kumar is concerned. 8. Under these circumstances, prosecution case as against Shiv Kumar for offence under Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act for dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriating the property i.e. the amount entrusted to him as public servant was duly proved. Case for offence under Section 409 IPC for misappropriation and case for offence under Sections 471 and 477A IPC for forgery, had been duly proved. 9. Prithvi Singh appellant was Internal Auditor. Misappropriation had been for the period from April to July 1992. It had been argued on behalf of the prosecution that as per PGI Manual, it was the duty of the Internal Auditor to issue fresh receipt book to the Fee Clerk only after the counter-foils of the receipt books earlier issued were checked and since misappropriation was that of the amount pertaining to six receipt books issued by Prithvi Singh, he was conspirator in the crime of misappropriation and forgery with Shiv Kumar. 10. 10. No such question was put to Prithvi Singh accused in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that fresh receipt books could not be issued to Shiv Kumar unless the earlier one was deposited and the counter-foils of the earlier receipts were checked by the Internal Auditor. It may be that Prithvi Singh himself had no knowledge of misappropriation being done, since as per prosecution case itself, it had been in respect of 21 receipts during period of 34 months in the receipts issued out of six receipt books. Under these circumstances, I hold that case of the prosecution that Prithvi Singh had entered into criminal conspiracy with Shiv Kumar to misappropriate the amount or to commit forgery was not proved beyond doubt. As such the appeal filed by Prithvi Singh appellant is accepted. He is acquitted of the charge. He bail bonds also stand cancelled. 11. Appeal filed by Shiv Kumar is dismissed. He shall surrender to undergo the sentence.