Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 151 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Pritam Chand

2025-04-29

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 159 26.9.84 Ghagga 406 IPC P. Ch. No. 34T of 10.4.1989 Date of Decision 18.1.1990 1. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal captioned above, all seven accused who were prosecuted for misappropriating 447 quintals and 5 kgs 900 grams of rice, which was entrusted to M/s Jagdamba Rice Mill by the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP) for custom milling as per the agreement dated 12.10.1983, Ex.PW3/A which was misappropriated and a loss of Rs.1,33,028.99 paise was caused to PUNSUP by not returning the rice, the State had come before this Court seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC, which was granted; hence, this appeal. 2. Vide judgment dated 16.10.2002 passed in CRA-S-28-DB-1991, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the present appeal. Feeling aggrieved, State filed SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court, which granted Special Leave to Appeal and vide judgment dated 11.02.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1069 of 2004 before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted back to this Court for fresh consideration. While remanding the matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to definition of breach of trust and some judicial precedents i.e. Rajesh Bajaj v/s State NCT of Delhi 1999(3) SCC 259 and Trisuns Chemical Industry v/s Rajesh Aggarwal and others 1999(8) SCC 686 . Thus, Hon’ble Apex Court was not convinced of dismissing the appeal in summary manner and remanded the matter to be decided fresh. 3. After that, notices were issued by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.03.2011. Vide judgment dated 09.08.2012 the matter was referred to a larger Bench on the proposition of law on the simultaneous initiation of civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings. Vide judgment dated 25.01.2013 passed by the then Division Bench of this Court, reference was answered. It would be appropriate to refer to point no. Vide judgment dated 09.08.2012 the matter was referred to a larger Bench on the proposition of law on the simultaneous initiation of civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings. Vide judgment dated 25.01.2013 passed by the then Division Bench of this Court, reference was answered. It would be appropriate to refer to point no. viii of the said judgment which reads as follows: “(viii) To sum up and reiterate, we hold that the appellant or the petitioner-rice millers cannot seek quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them under Sections 405, 406 or 415 IPC or other related provisions of IPC only on the ground that they have entered into an agreement with one or the other procuring agencies or that non-delivery, shortage of delivery or delivery of poor quality of rice by them, gives rise to civil liability for which the complainant-procuring agencies have got an efficacious remedy by invoking the arbitration clause and seeking consequential recovery. However, if the investigation report, even on its acceptance in entirety, does not disclose prima-facie ingredients of any offence under the penal law(s), the aggrieved party is at liberty to raise such a plea before an appropriate forum as per the conclusions summarised above” 4. Although three matters were listed together, but were consolidated on the question of law, which stands answered as extracted above and as such there is no reason to pass a common judgment. Consequently, this Court will adjudicate this appeal matter separately. 5. This appeal was filed in this Court three and a half decades ago. As of this date, out of the seven accused, five have passed away, and only the accused, A-4 Ram Niwas and A-7 Murli Manohar are alive. The appeals regarding the other five have already been abated. Thus, this Court will confine itself to the evidence available only against Ram Niwas, and the evidence relevant to such an adjudication, and not against anyone else. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and its analysis would lead to the following outcome. 7. The case of the prosecution was initiated on the basis of a letter addressed by the District Manager of the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and its analysis would lead to the following outcome. 7. The case of the prosecution was initiated on the basis of a letter addressed by the District Manager of the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to state that PUNSUP refers to a Punjab Government undertaking and one of its important functions is to purchase paddy and get it custom milled and deliver the processed rice to Food Corporation of India (FCI) as per instructions issued by Punjab Government from time to time. 8. As per the State, the criminal violation took place when Punjab Civil Supplies Corporation noticed a shortage of quantities of paddy allotted to M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills for shelling during 1983-84. The said firm was owned by Pritam Chand A-1, Geeta A-2, Lala Ram A-3, Ram Niwas A-4 surviving appellant, Moman Ram A-5, Ram Charan A-6 and Murli Manohar A-7. The relevant portion of the complaint is extracted from the said letter which reads as follows: “The shelling of paddy was to be done by the firm in accordance with the instructions of the Punjab Government. The detail of the paddy entrusted to the firm is given below: Variety of Qty In Bags Qyt. stored In Qtls. Paddy PR-106 6134 Bags 4293-80-000 In accordance with the Government instructions 67% yield of rice was to be given in respect of PR-106 rice variety by the above-said partnership firm to the Food Corporation of India on behalf of PUNSUP Patiala. On this 2% driage is also allowed as per instructions of the Govt. which are in the knowledge of the firm. As against these instructions, the firm has delivered much less rice/paddy and the details of the delivered and balance rice which was to be delivered are given below:- Variety Qty. of rice obtainable after allowing 2% driage (in qtls.) @ 67% Qty. of rice actually delivered in quintals Balance Qty. rice not delivered by the firm PR-106 2819-30-900 To F.C.I., 2134-75-000 Godown Total: 2372-25-000 447-05-900 In addition to this 3634 ‘B’ Class Gunny Bags (out of 6134 bags entrusted to the firm) and the firm was to return the same to PUNSUP Patiala but has not returned these so far. The above named persons are the owners/partners of the firm M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills, Ghagha. The above named persons are the owners/partners of the firm M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills, Ghagha. They executed an agreement on stamp paper worth Rs.15/- with D.M. PUNSUP, Patiala, photostat copy of which is enclosed. All the said accused have criminally mis-appropriated the paddy/rice with the detail given above, along with other articles mentioned above and have thus converted the same to their own use committing thereby breach of trust in violation of the instructions and agreement executed by the party laying down the practice and procedure in this regard and in this way, they have made PUNSUP to suffer a loss of Rs.1,33,028-99. The PUNSUP which is a State Govt. undertaking has in this way been cheated by the above noted firm and its partners. At present there are no stocks of rice/paddy lying with the firm. All the partners are equally liable for this criminal mis-appropriation and breach of trust. A criminal case be registered against M/s Jagdamba Rice Mill, Ghagha and its partners named above, for mis-appropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating and fraud having been committed at PUNSUP.” 9. In summary, PUNSUP's complaint was that based on agreement dated 12.10.1983, (Ext. PW3/A), after receiving the paddy for custom milling, the accused embezzled it and neither returned the paddy nor rice, causing a loss of Rs.1,33,028.99. Based on these allegations above captioned FIR was registered, and investigation was carried out. Necessary documents were taken in possession and after completion of the investigation, prosecution was launched against all seven accused. After considering the investigation report the trial Court found commission of a prima facie offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, to which appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 10. An analysis of the submissions made by counsel for the parties as well as the record would lead to the following outcome. 11. Of the seven accused, only A-4 Ram Niwas and A-7 Murli Manohar are alive. Therefore, this Court would not refer to and consider the examination or cross- examination which was conducted on or behalf of those accused who have expired and also that evidence which has become irrelevant due to the abatement and this Court would focus only on the evidence brought on the record against or involving the surviving accused A-4 Ram Niwas and A-7 Murli Manohar. To analyze the same, it would be appropriate to refer to the prosecution witnesses and documents. 12. To analyze the same, it would be appropriate to refer to the prosecution witnesses and documents. 12. PW1 Dharamjit Kaur, a Clerk was a formal witness who had tendered in evidence the record identified as Exhibit A. 13. PW2 Vishnu Kant, an Accountant in PUNSUP in the year 1986, tendered in evidence the paddy release order (Ex. PW2/A), receipt (Ex.PW2/B), affidavit (Ex.PW2/C), and photostat copies (Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW3/F). In cross- examination, PW2 admitted that the release order Ex.PW2/A was not in his hand and had been scribed by the Inspector after releasing the paddy. He further admitted that release order did not bear the signatures of Ram Charan- partner to whom the paddy was supplied. In cross-examination, although he denied the documents to be forged but stated that the stock register was prepared by him. 14. PW3 Rajinder Singh, who retired as the Deputy Director, Food Supplies, had tendered in evidence original agreement entered between the Department and M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills Ghagga. He stated that at the time when the agreement was entered with the firm on 12.10.1983, Ram Charan had signed the agreement on behalf of the firm. During cross-examination, he acknowledged that the paddy was not supplied according to the variety specified in the agreement. He also mentioned that 4200 quintals of paddy were supplied. 15. PW5 ASI Pritam Singh (Now Retired) stated that he had partly conducted investigation in this FIR. He testified that on 09.07.1986 PW2 Vishnu Kant, Accountant had produced the record. He also exhibited the original document Ex.PW5/A and proved photocopy of the release order, original of which is Ex.PW2/A. He also tendered in evidence receipt regarding 6/34 bags of Paddy-106 from Jagdamba Rice Mills and tendered in evidence its photocopy as Ex.PW5/B and photocopy of affidavit of Ram Charan Dass after comparing with the original Ex.PW5/C). He investigated Dharamjit Kaur, Licence Clerk, and obtained a photocopy of the partnership deed, based on which licence No.128 was issued to Jagdamba Rice Mill. 16. PW6 is Sub Inspector Mangal Singh who testified that on 26.09.1984, he was posted as ASI at Police Station Ghagga and at that time, he had registered formal FIR Ex.PW6/A based on the complaint received by Surinder Singh Ghuman, District Magistrate. He further testified that he conducted investigation in the said case. 16. PW6 is Sub Inspector Mangal Singh who testified that on 26.09.1984, he was posted as ASI at Police Station Ghagga and at that time, he had registered formal FIR Ex.PW6/A based on the complaint received by Surinder Singh Ghuman, District Magistrate. He further testified that he conducted investigation in the said case. He stated that on 16.10.1984, Inspector PUNSUP had handed over to him the stock register Ex.PW6/B and photocopy of the agreement Ex.PW3/A which he had compared from the original in the Court. He also testified the photocopy of writing regarding 428 bags of Rice (PR-106) Ex.PW6/C from Ram Charan and compared it with the original. He also identified six out of the seven accused, the exception being Lala Ram, being present in Court. 17. PW-7 Harvel Singh, testified that his son Narinder Singh was a partner of the firm namely Amarjit Rice Mill Badshahpur. He stated that he had seen the original agreement between PUNSUP and M/s Jagdamba Rice Mill Ghagga to which he had signed as a witness, and he identified his signatures. The second witness was Purshotam Lal and also proved the original agreement Ex. PW3/A. During cross-examination, Harvel Singh mentioned that the agreement was neither read to him nor was he aware of its contents. 18. PW-8 is Surinder Singh Ghuman, Deputy Director, Food and Supply testified that in 1983-84, Rajinder Singh, District Manager entered into agreement with Jagdamba Rice Mills and entrusted the paddy belonging to PUNSUP for custom milling. He stated that Jagdamba Rice Mills did not deliver 447 quintals and 05 kgs of rice to FCI which was required to be supplied by PUNSUP to FCI and as such, mis-appropriated by the mill. Further, 3634-B class gunny bags which were to be returned to PUNSUP were also mis- appropriated. In his cross-examination, he admitted that neither the agreement was executed in his presence, nor he had dictated the same. 19. PW9 is Harbans Singh, SI who stated that after completion of investigation, he had filed challan under Section 173 CrPC. 20. These are the only prosecution witnesses tendered in evidence. 21. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against the accused were put to him under Section 313 CrPC. 22. This Court shall initially deal with the statement made on 11.12.1989 of surviving accused Ram Niwas, made under Section 313 CrPC. 20. These are the only prosecution witnesses tendered in evidence. 21. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against the accused were put to him under Section 313 CrPC. 22. This Court shall initially deal with the statement made on 11.12.1989 of surviving accused Ram Niwas, made under Section 313 CrPC. It is for this reason that the answer given by other accused could have only been used against them in the said case or in some other case but have no bearing against co-accused because of explicit clarification in the language of Section 313 CrPC. 23. Respondent Ram Niwas Accused No. 4, admitted question No.1 that he was a member of M/s Jagdamba Rice Mill along with co-accused Pritam Chand, Geeta, Lala Ram, Moman Ram, Ram Charan and Murli Manohar. However, A-4 Ram Niwas denied execution of agreement Ex.PW1/A. He further denied regarding licence for shelling issued to M/s Jagdamba Rice Mill. Regarding supply of rice and gunny bags to Jagdamba Rice Mills, he answered “I do not know”. He also gave similar answers to seizure of various documents by the Investigator as were detailed in statement under Section 313 CrPC. He also denied filing of affidavit Ex.PW4/A regarding receipt of rice. In closing of 313 CrPC, he stated that arbitration proceedings were going on between our firm and PUNSUP regarding paddy. In nutshell, the only prosecution evidence which the accused A-4 Ram Niwas admitted was he being member of M/s Jagdamba Rice Mill and he denied everything else. 24. Given the above, the Court has to analyse the evidence which is documentary. The most material piece of evidence is affidavit Ex.PW4/A given by co-accused Ram Charan Dass. I have gone through the affidavit Ex.PW4/A which is on page 51 of the trial Court record and its translation is as follows: That I Ram Charan Dass partner of M/s Jagdamba Rice Mill is resident of Ghagga, Tehsil Samanna, District Patiala. I state on oath that I have to give PR-106 quality 468 bags weighing around 445 quintals of rice for the crop year 1983-84. I have the rice bags with me in hand but they are not of appropriate quality. I state on oath that I will give PR-106 quality 468 bags weighing around 445 quintals of rice within 30.10.1984 to 30.11.1984 or I will repay the amount thereof. 25. This affidavit Ex. I have the rice bags with me in hand but they are not of appropriate quality. I state on oath that I will give PR-106 quality 468 bags weighing around 445 quintals of rice within 30.10.1984 to 30.11.1984 or I will repay the amount thereof. 25. This affidavit Ex. PW4/A does not attribute anything to any other accused including the surviving A-4 Ram Niwas. 26. Further, this affidavit Ex.PW4/A was attested by Jagdeep Kaur, Advocate, Oath Commissioner, Patiala, however perusal of the prosecution evidence does not mention her name as one of the witnesses. 27. Although Ram Charan Dass had expired and even if he had furnished such affidavit, still it would have no bearing on the surviving accused because they were not signatory to the affidavit. Statement of Ram Charan Dass was recorded under Section 313 CrPC on 11.12.1989. Regarding the entrustment of paddy, he had stated that he had executed an agreement to take 15000 quintals of paddy from PUNSUP but did not get paddy according to the agreement, however he had admitted the affidavit Ex.PW4/A. 28. Section 313(3) CrPC reads as follows: 313. Power to examine the accused.— (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court— (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. (5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.] [Sub Clause (5) inserted by Act 5 of 2009, s. 22 (w.e.f. 31-12-2009)] 29. It shall be appropriate to refer to Section 313(4) which states that the answers given by an accused person under examination can be used as evidence in the same trial or in other trials related to different offenses if those answers indicate involvement in those offenses. This section highlights the significance of considering the accused's answers as evidence, particularly in cases where the accused's statement might reveal other crimes or circumstances against such an accused even in other cases. Thus, a bare reading of Section 313(4) CrPC clearly mentions that the answers given by the accused can be taken only against such accused and there is nothing in Section 313(4) that it can be taken against even the co-accused. 30. Given the above, even if Ram Charan Dass had admitted in his affidavit regarding the custody of paddy and bags, this admission under Section 313 of the CrPC alone does not render the co-accused liable. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove this affidavit by examining Jagdeep Kaur, Advocate who had attested the affidavit but she was not examined. Thus, the evidence coming in Ex.PW4/A cannot be read in evidence against surviving appellant Ram Niwas A-4 and Murli Manohar A-7. Moreover, no witness was examined to connect the accused with the crime that they were active partner in the firm and they were indulged in embezzlement. 31. Perusal of the entire evidence mentions that the accused-respondent Ram Niwas is not a signatory of any of the document. The only admission made by him under Section 313 CrPC was that they were partner of M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills, that alone would not impose any criminal liability on him. 32. Given the lack of evidence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 33. The only admission made by him under Section 313 CrPC was that they were partner of M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills, that alone would not impose any criminal liability on him. 32. Given the lack of evidence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 33. Further, a perusal of judgment passed by the trial Court is well reasoned and calls for no interference. 34. Given the above, the appeal stands dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.