JUDGMENT
1. These two Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. 56 of 1990 and 154 of 1990 arise out of the governing judgment and orders of a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the convictions and sentences of the appellants herein were confirmed as ordered under the judgment and order of the Special Judge.
2. Shiv Kumar Ratti, one of the appellants herein was an Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department. He had in his possession and control a wheat godown situated in the D.A.V. School, Takhatgarh in the District of Ropar, Punjab. An Assistant Sub-Inspector, bearing an identical name as that of other appellant Ranjit Singh son of Om Prakash was also incharge of that wheat godown. A double key system was put to use amongst the two to open the godown. Some complaints were received by the Director, Food Supplies Department, Punjab that there had been misappropriation of the wheat stock. Consequently, on January 12, 1983, physical verification of stock was made and it was discovered that 336 bags of what were short. The matter was then entrusted to the Vigilance Department which went into the matter. Finally, on finding Shiv Kumar Ratti to be one of the persons responsible for the shortfall and, in particular, to a part of it which relates to the present crime under scrutiny, sent up Shiv Kumar Ratti and two others to stand up trial before the Court of a learned Special Judge for offences punishable under Section 409, I.P.C. read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 insofar as Shiv Kumar Ratti was concerned and for offences punishable under Section 409 read with Section 120B, I.P.C. insofar as Ranjit Singh, appellant and the third acquitted co-accused, Hazarilal were concerned. The trial Court having found them guilty and their appeal having been dismissed by the High Court has caused the appellants to be before us.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on December 12, 1982, Ranjit Singh, appellant in conspiracy with Shiv Kumar Ratti hired a truck from the truck union of Nurpur Bedi town and thereafter got loaded about 135 bags of wheat weighing about 107-1/2 quintals from D.A.V. School Departmental godown which was brought to Chandigarh and sold at the shop of a Commission Agent, the following day, for, a total sum of Rs. 19,217.54, the proceeds of which were divided by Shiv Kumar Ratti taking Rs. 15,000/ – and the balance remaining with Ranjit Singh, the appellant. The courts below have believed the prosecution version in its entirety insofar as the hiring of the truck is concerned from the evidence of PW-4, and insofar as the sale of wheat was concerned by the evidence of PW 6-the Commission Agent, through whom sale was made. The complicity of Shi v. Kumar Ratti, Inspector, was spelt from his boarding the truck at a convenient place after it had been loaded and his getting down at Ropar town giving directions that the wheat be taken to Chandigarh for sale. Even though we have gone through the evidence led by the prosecution at the behest of the learned Counsel for the appellants, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to take any other view than the one taken by the courts below that Government wheat was misappropriated in the manner suggested by the prosecution.
4. There is one aspect, however, on which learned Counsel for Ranjit Singh lays much stress and that is the identity of Ranjit Singh. Much reliance was placed on the descriptions and the narratives given in the judgment of the High Court where Ranjit Singh has been assumed to be the one who in the department was the Assistant Sub-Inspector and who had been dealt departmentally for shortages of wheat relating to the said godown, as was Shiv Kumar Ratti. Both of them were dismissed from service because of wheat shortages. It is from that particular it was sought to be urged that the Vigilance Department had reported the offence against the departmental Ranjit Singh son of Om Parkash and not the non-departmental Ranjit Singh son of Om Prakash who was made to stand trial and is the appellant before us. At the askance of Mr. P.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant we have been shown the copy of the dismissal order and from a bare look of it we find there is no identity of the facts on which the order is based. Nowhere in the said order has mention been made to the instant consignment of wheat as part of the criminal conspiracy. Ex facie, these are two separate aspects. Had there been a dispute of identity that would have been the first objection of Ranjit Singh, appellant before the trial Court. No such cry was made at that juncture. It is due to the mis description made in the judgment of the High Court that an argument has been based in order to create a confusion that the culprit of the crime was substituted. There is absolutely no basis for it and the impression created in that regard in the judgment of the High Court, is dispelled hereby unequivocally. It may also be added that Ranjit Singh, appellant was never charged under Section 409, I.P.C. or even for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. If the courts below thought that the departmental Ranjit Singh was to be prosecuted and the Public Prosecutor was conscious of that fact, charges under Sections 409, I.P.C. and 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act should have been framed directly against Ranjit Singh, appellant. Significantly, charge against him only is for being a member of the criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B, I.P.C. read with Section 409, I.P.C.The argument raised by learned Counsel is stoutly rejected.
5. We have no doubt in our mind that the convictions of the appellants are well based. Learned Counsel at this juncture have prayed for reduction of sentence because of lapse of time, and in particular, Shiv Kumar Ratti having lost his job. That apart, the courts below seemed to have overlooked to reimburse the State of the loss it was made to suffer by the swindling of the wheat. We take this opportunity to reimburse the State for the loss it has incurred. Keeping that in regard, we reduce the sentence of Shiv Kumar Ratti (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 1990) to six months’ R.I. while imposing on him a fine of Rupees. 15,000/- (his share of the price of the wheat) and direct him to pay the same within eight weeks from today, in default of which he shall further undergo a sentence of one year’s R.I. Likewise, we reduce the sentence of Ranjit Singh (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1990) to a period of four months’ R.I. but at the same time add a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (his approx. share of the price of wheat) to be paid within eight weeks, in default of which he shall further undergo a sentence of four months’ R.I. With these modifications in the sentences of the appellants, the appeals otherwise fail and are hereby dismissed.