Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1947 (PNJ)

Karam Chand v. State of Punjab

2010-07-05

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2010
JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J.:- The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, vide judgement and order dated 09.07.2003 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- Offence Rigorous imprisonment for a Fine In default of under period of payment of fine section to undergo RI for a period of 409 IPC 2 years Rs.1000 30 days 420 IPC 1 ½ years Rs.700 15 days 468 IPC 1 ½ years Rs.700 15 days 471 IPC 1 ½ years Rs.700 15 days 2. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against his aforesaid conviction order was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur vide judgement dated 09.06.2010. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of complaint made by Assistant Geologist, Department of Agricultural, Hoshiarpur (Ground Water Cell), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. It was alleged in the complaint:- “1. That on 25.08.1996 Karam Chand accused received cheque in respect of Government Provident Fund Advance of Shri Chuhar Ram, Beldar amounting to Rs.7000/- from the Government Treasury but did not give in the office. Rather, he retained the same with him. On 26.08.1995 without the endorsement of Assistant Geologist, Hoshiarpur and in the absence of the Assistant Geologist from the office as there was Saturday, he forged the signatures of the Assistant Geologist, Hoshiarpur and encashed the cheque from the bank but he didi not deposit the same in the office due to which the concerned official has not been made payment of the cheque. 2. That on 06.09.1995, the accused prepared bill regarding G.P. Fund advance in respect of Om Parkash and also prepared it is sanction. He forged the signatures of Shri Kanwarjit Singh, Assistant Geologist, Hoshiarpur on the bill and its sanction and got the said bill passed from the Treasury under forged signatures and also received the bill under forged signatures. At the time of preparing the bill the accused also showed the forged G.P. Fund number of Om Parkash. After getting the bill passed from the Treasury, accused Karam Chand also attempted to get the cheque encashed from the bank under forged signatures. On coming to know that the said cheque has been issued against forged bill, the Treasury Officer informed the bank not to make the payment against said cheque vide memo No. 4847 dated 14.09.1995. 3. After getting the bill passed from the Treasury, accused Karam Chand also attempted to get the cheque encashed from the bank under forged signatures. On coming to know that the said cheque has been issued against forged bill, the Treasury Officer informed the bank not to make the payment against said cheque vide memo No. 4847 dated 14.09.1995. 3. That on 20.08.1995 and 22.08.1995, the accused was asked to obtain stationery from M/s Raghunath Dass and sons, Hoshiarpur and accordingly the accused obtained stationery amounting to Rs.4093.95 but instead of depositing the same in the office, the accused misappropriated the stationery so obtained by him.” 4. While challenging the judgements passed by the both the Courts below through the present revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was duly contended before the Courts below that “the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW Kuldip Singh, Partner of M/s Raghunath Dass and Sons who has deposed that on 17.10.1995 stationery of Rs.4093.95p was given to the Assistant Geologist, Hoshiarpur vide Bills No. 1815, 1835, 1836, 1847, 1861, 1879. He has never stated that the articles were handed over to Karam Chand-appellant and moreover, Ex P10 does not bear his signatures”. However, the aforesaid arguments have not been considered by the Courts below. It was also contended that no authority letter was given to Karam Chand to bring the money from the Bank. It is well settled law that every office used to send the signatures of the concerned employee to the Treasury Officer for getting the cheques or bill passed. In the absence of any authority letter, the appellant Karam Chand cannot be held guilty. Moreover, when this witness left the charge, nothing was short. It was also contended that PW 4 Om Parkash who has supported the case of the prosecution, has made no grievance against Karam Chand, so there is no case of any forgery and cheating. It was also stated that admittedly, the payment of cheque towards bill dated 06.09.1995 was stopped and therefore, no offence can be said to be made against the petitioner. It was also contended that the evidence and the examination of the witnesses has not been properly appreciated and the petitioner has been wrongly convicted. 5. Learned counsel was heard at length. 6. It was also contended that the evidence and the examination of the witnesses has not been properly appreciated and the petitioner has been wrongly convicted. 5. Learned counsel was heard at length. 6. PW11 Churh Ram has deposed that a cheque of Rs.7000/- was received by Karam Chand without obtaining the signature of Shri Kaushal on the endorsement and forged the signatures of Shri Kaushal. He, himself, admitted vide EX PD that he had withdrawn the amount. PW13 Piare Singh also stated that Karam Chand had received a cheque of Rs.7000/-. He did not enter the amount in the cash book nor he made the payment of Rs.7000/- to Chuhr Ram. 7. With respect to cheque for a sum of Rs.6500/-, PW2 Kanwarjit Singh deposed that Karam Chand prepared the bill to withdraw the amount on account of General Provident Fund of Om Parkash working as Beldar. Karam Chand forged the signatures on it as well as on the sanction attached with the bill. Since the said bill was forged, the payment of the cheque was stopped. PW-4 Om Parkash also deposed that he had moved no application for the withdrawal of amount from his GPF account and a false application on his behalf was prepared. Thus, forgery is duly proved. The fact that the payment of the cheque was stopped as per the instructions of Treasury Officer is also proved. Thus, the accused cannot be said to be innocent just because he could not succeed in withdrawing the amount of Rs.6500/- from the General Provident Fund of Chuhr Ram. 8. It is evident from the finding recorded by the Appellate Court that PW-3 Sham Lal Kaushal, who deposed that Karam Chand was asked to purchase stationery from M/s Raghunath Dass and Sons vide bills No. 1814, 1815, 1835, 1836, 1843, 1861, 1879. All the goods mentioned in the bills were received by Karam Chand. Bills Ex. P1 to P9 have been proved on record. The same bear the signatures of Karam Chand. 9. With respect to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Karam Chand had no authority to collect the amount and in the absence of the same Karam Chand cannot be held guilty, it is established that PW5 Dilbagh Singh, Junior Assistant has proved the authority letter in favour of Karam Chand. 9. With respect to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Karam Chand had no authority to collect the amount and in the absence of the same Karam Chand cannot be held guilty, it is established that PW5 Dilbagh Singh, Junior Assistant has proved the authority letter in favour of Karam Chand. Moreover, the petitioner, himself, admitted his liability vide EX PD stating that he had undertaken to deposit the amount which he did not deposit. 10. The other arguments that PW2 Kanwarjit Singh was not posted at the time of occurrence as per his testimony is no doubt correct but a finding has been duly record that he was the official witness who took over after his predecessor and deposed on the basis of the record available with the office. Moreover, his evidence is corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, namely, Om Parkash, Sham Lal Kaushal and Laskhar Singh, Chuhr Ram, Parduman Singh and others. 11. The next argument that Om Parkash has made no grievance against Karam Chand is also found to be incorrect. Mark A is a letter written by Om Parkash. While appearing in the witness box as PW4, he admitted his signatures. Even PW13 Piare Singh who was examined by the prosecution and turned hostile admitted that cheque of Rs.6500/- dated 08.09.1995 was received by Karam Chand. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. -------------