Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 522 (PNJ)

Labh Singh v. State Of Punjab

2009-03-19

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgement, dated 24.08.01, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which, it partly accepted the appeal, reducing the substantive sentence to one and a half years, from three years, against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.09.99, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Malerkotla, vide which, it convicted the accused (now revision-petitioner) for the offence, punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Labh Singh, accused (now revision-petitioner), was the Secretary of Cooperative Agricultural Society, Manvi, from 1981 to 1985. Being the servant of the Society, he was entrusted a sum of Rs. 7540/-, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same, The case was registered against the accused. He was arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation., he was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 408, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against him, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Balwinder Singh (PW1), Bhaawan Singh (PW2). Achhra Singh, (PW3), Kamail Singh (PW4). Jeet Singh (PW5), Bhan Singh (PW6), Darshan Singh. Secretary (PW7)- Mehar Singh . (PW8). Balwant Singh (PW9). Bakhshish Singh. (PW10)j, Darshan Singh, Clerk (PW11). Assistant Sub Inspector Des Raj (PW12) (wrongly numbered as PW11 in the statement). Dial Singh. (PW13), Baldev Singh. (PW 14), and. Kapoor Singh (PW15) (wrongly numbered as 13 in the statement). Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement 6f the Recused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him. in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that he w;as merely a servant of the Society, and had nothing to do with the money received from the members of the same (Society). He examined Gursewak Singh. (DW l), and Bhupinder Singlr (DW2), in defence. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him. in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that he w;as merely a servant of the Society, and had nothing to do with the money received from the members of the same (Society). He examined Gursewak Singh. (DW l), and Bhupinder Singlr (DW2), in defence. Thereafter, he closed his defence evidence. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, it acquitted him, for the offences, punishable under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Feeling aggrieved., an appeal was preferred by the appellant (now revision-petitioner), which was partly accepted, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, reducing the substantive sentence awarded to him to one and a half years. 8. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, was filed by the revision-petitioner. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court. Even otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the same, as the Courts below, on correct appreciation of the cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence of Balwinder Singh (PW1), Bhagwan Singh (PW2), Achhra Singh (PW3), Karnail Singh.(PW4), Jeet Singh (PW5), Bhan Singh (PW6), Darshan Singh, Secretary (PW7), Mehar Singh (PW8), Balwant Singh (PW9), Bakhshish Singh (PW10), Darshan Singh, Clerk (PW11), Assistant Sub Inspector Des Raj (PW12) (wrongly numbered as PW11 in the statement), Dial Singh (PW13), Baldev Singh (PW14), and Kapoor Singh (PW15) (wrongly numbered as 13 in the statement), came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 7540/-, in this challan, was entrusted to the accused, which he dishonestly misappropriated. The Courts below were also right, in coming to the conclusion that, as such, the accused committed the offence, punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. 7540/-, in this challan, was entrusted to the accused, which he dishonestly misappropriated. The Courts below were also right, in coming to the conclusion that, as such, the accused committed the offence, punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. It is settled principle of law, that in its revisional jurisdiction, the Court is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings, recorded by the Courts below, are either illegal or perverse or erroneous, on account of mis-reading of evidence. The careful perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, in context with the evidence, produced by the prosecution, referred to above, does not indicate that the findiings of guilt recorded, are either perverse or illegal or erroneous on account of the mis-reading of evidence. Under these circumstances, the findings of the Courts below, holding the accused guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, and recording his conviction for the same, do not warrant any interference and deserve to be upheld. 11. The Counsel forthe revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 22.10.1985, the date of registration of the case against him i.e. for the last more than 23 years. He further submitted that the revision- petitioner has not committed any other offence, after the registration of the aforesaid case against him. He further submitted that the revision-petitioner has already undergone 10 months of sentence, and lenient view be taken against him, by reducing the same, to the period already undergone. The submission of the Counsel forthe revision-petitioner, in this regard, appears to be correct. Since the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, for the last more than 23 years, he must have suffered a lot of mental agony and physical pain. The amount of embezzlement, also could not be said to be huge, so as to deny him the concession of lenient punishment. Since the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, for the last more than 23 years, he must have suffered a lot of mental agony and physical pain. The amount of embezzlement, also could not be said to be huge, so as to deny him the concession of lenient punishment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the factum that the revision- petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings for the last more than 23 years, and is aged about 70 years, as is evident from the record, and has also not committed any other offence, after the registration of the aforesaid case, as submitted by his Counsel, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which, by taking lenient view, the sentence awarded to him, should be reduced to a period of 10 months, while maintaining the sentence of fine, and in default of payment of the same. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner to this extent is accepted. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the revision- petition is partly accepted. The judgments of conviction of the Courts below, are upheld. The order of sentence is modified, in the manner, that the revision-petitioner, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 months, instead of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years, awarded by the First Appellate Court, whereas, the sentence of fine and sentence awarded in default of payment of fine, shall remain intact. The substantive sentence reduced, in this case, shall run concurrently with the substantive sentence, awarded by way of reduction in Criminal Revision Nos. 882 of 2002, 883 of 2002, 885 of 2002,88.6 of 2002,887 of 2002,888 of 2002,and 889 of 2002. 13. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the judgement promptly on receipt of a certified copy thereof, keeping in view the applicability of provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.