Criminal Revision No.1496 of 2009 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.1496 of 2009
Date of decision: 7.12.2009.
Pirthi Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.S.Pattar, Senior Deputy Advocate General,Haryana
S. D. ANAND, J.
Petitioner-Prithi Singh (and non-petitioner Bharat Singh) were
convicted by the learned Trial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 23.1.2008,
and sentenced vide order dated 24.1.2008 for an offence under Section
409 IPC to undergo RI for a period of two years each and also to pay a fine
of Rs.2000/- each. It was ordered that in default of payment of fine, both of
them shall undergo further RI for a period of three months. The fine was
paid by both of them.
In appeal, learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat upheld the
finding of conviction but diluted the order on point of sentence by ordering
that the petitioner (and also the non-petitioner shall undergo imprisonment
till the rising of the Court. The fine imposed was, however, upheld. That
appeal had been jointly filed by the petitioner Pirthi Singh and non-
petitioner Bharat Singh. The latter has not opted to file a revision petition
against the order recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat. It is
only Pirthi Singh who is in revision against the affirmation of the finding of
Criminal Revision No.1496 of 2009 -2-
****
conviction by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued, at the very
outset, that there is plenty of evidence available on record to that the
amount entrusted to the petitioner has since been adjusted and, thus, it
cannot be said with any justification that any amount had been
misappropriated by the petitioner. Reliance, in support of the view
aforementioned, is placed upon the statement of PW-6 Ashok Kumar
Verma, Senior Accounts Officer, HSIDC, Panchkula wherein he conceded,
as correct, a suggestion that amount of Rs.25,000/- entrusted to the
petitioner vide voucher Ex. D2 has since been adjusted.
The plea raised is completely denuded of merit. Insofar as the
consequential plea for a complete exoneration of the petitioner on the
basis of the averred adjustment is concerned. The reasons therefor are as
under:-
Insofar as the entrustment of the amount aforementioned of
Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner herein is concerned, it was testified on oath at
the trial by the statements of PW-5 Harjit Kaur, Deputy Superintendent,
Establishment Branch and PW-7-Satish Gulati, Deputy Superintendent,
both of whom made a record-based statement with regard to the
entrustment of the amount aforementioned to the petitioner herein. They
identified the signatures of the petitioner herein on the relevant vouchers.
Their competence to identify the signatures of the petitioner on the relevant
vouchers cannot be questioned in view of the fact that these officers had
been dealing with the matters pertaining to establishment in the very office
where the petitioner is posted and they would be familiar with the signature
of the petitioner in official routine.
Even otherwise, it would be pertinent to notice that a plea for
Criminal Revision No.1496 of 2009 -3-
****
adjustment presupposes initially entrustment. It is only when an amount is
conceded to have been entrusted to an individual that the latter would be
entitled to raise a plea for ‘adjustment’.
It would be relevant to notice here that PW-5 Smt. Harjit Kaur
and PW-7 Satish Gulati were not subjected to any cross-examination on
behalf of the petitioner. Though it is apparent from the record that an
attempt was made during the trial to have them recalled for the purpose of
cross-examination but the endeavour proved abortive. The order of the
Court declining the plea for recall of those witnesses for the purpose of
cross-examination would appear to have attained finality in the absence of
even a claim that any appeal or revision came to be filed. It would follow
therefrom that statements made by PW-5 Smt. Harjit Kaur and PW-7
Satish Gulati, qua entrustment of the amount under reference, are
unchallenged till date.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
then, raised a plea for exoneration on the premise that a departmental
enquiry conducted by the Executive Engineer had recorded a finding of
innocence in favour of the petitioner. The plea raised is fallacious on the
face of it. The scope of a departmental enquiry and criminal trial are
entirely different and there can be no dispute about it. Interestingly
enough, it is in the statement of PW-7-Satish Gulati that Enquiry Officer
had recorded a finding that the amount of Rs.25,000/-, which had been
advanced to the petitioner, had been adjusted. This finding does not, in
any case, exonerate the appellant of the charge of temporary
embezzlement (for a period of two years).
No other plea was raised before this Court.
There being adequate documented material on the record to
Criminal Revision No.1496 of 2009 -4-
****
prove the prosecution charge of temporary embezzlement against the
petitioner herein, I have no hesitation in affirming the finding recorded by
the learned Sessions Judge which, in turn, affirmed that of the learned
Trial Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge exhibited more than
required charitable approach in reducing the sentence awarded to the
petitioner to the rising of the Court. However, in view of the fact that the
respondent has not opted to file a plea for enhancement, I do not wish to
interfere with it.
Disposed of accordingly.
December 07, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE