IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl Revision No. 1029 of 2001
Date of Decision: January 31, 2009
Madan Mohan alias Mohinder
Mohan Parbhakar
...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Ravi Dhaliwal,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG Punjab
Ms.Geeta Singhwal, Advocate for the complainant
Sabina, J.
Petitioner – Madan Mohan alias Mohinder Mohan Prbhakar was
convicted under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short) vide
judgment dated 28.7.2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana
and vide order of the even date was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and imposed fine of Rs. 200/-. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 13.7.2001.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2
of its judgment is as under:-
“In nut shell, the prosecution case is that Hindustan Bicycles
Tubes Pvt. Ltd. is owned by Hindustan tyres company. This
company has been carrying on business of bicycle and auto tyres
and tubes having branches all over India including at Kanpur for
sale of its products. Accused Madan Mohan was appointed as
Crl Revision No. 1029 of 2001 -2-Manager at Kanpur on 10.3.73. He was required to promote the
sale of products of company and to collect the price of the goods
supplied by the company to varius customers from time to time
and then send the same to Head Office at Ludhiana. Accused was
required to account for the amount so collected. That when it
came to notice of the company that amounts were due/outstandng
against firms of area of Kanpur, then enquiries were made which
revealed that accused had collected the amount to the tune of Rs.
3 lacs but had not accounted for the same to the Head Office
thereby embezzling the amount. The accused had confessed his
guilt by way of furnishing of an affidavit promising to repay the
amount but he did not do so, which resulted in formal FIR being
registered against him. The accused was arrested in this case.
During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
collected documents, recorded statement of witnesses. After
completion of investigation and other formalities, challan against
the accused was filed in the Court.”
During the pendency of the revision petition, the parties have arrived
at a compromise. The compromise deed has been placed on record as
Annexure A1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has admitted the
contents of the compromise deed.
A perusal of the same reveals that the dispute between the parties was
amicably settled with the intervention of the friends and well wishers.
Complainant would have no objection, if the offence in question was
compounded
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that in view
Crl Revision No. 1029 of 2001 -3-
of the compromise deed (Annexure A1), the parties may be allowed to
compound the offence.
The submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is
liable to be allowed in view of the compromise deed (Annexure A1).
Accordingly, the parties are allowed to compound the offence.
Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned
judgments of the Courts below are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the
charge framed against him as the offence has been compounded.
( Sabina )
Judge
January 31, 2009
arya