Crl.Rev.No.1592 of 2001 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Revision No.1592 of 2001
Date of Decision: 5 - 3 - 2009
Rajinder Singh .....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms.Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner was prosecuted in a criminal complaint filed by Anup
Singh under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. He was convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 420 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he
was to undergo further imprisonment for three months.
In the complaint, it was stated that on 12.6.1992 and 15.6.1992
complainant visited the Retail Shop of accused-petitioner for purchase of
DCM cloth for his household purpose. The complainant had demanded
cloth manufactured by the DCM i.e. Delhi Cloth Mills. It is stated that the
accused made the complainant to believe that the cloth sold to the
Crl.Rev.No.1592 of 2001 [2]
complainant by him was manufactured by the DCM. Various cash memos
dated 12.6.1992 and 15.6.1992 amounting to Rs.9387/- were issued.
Complainant stated that cloth was not having the stamp of DCM and,
therefore, cash memos giving code numbers of DCM and issued for sale of
DCM cloth have been forged. Complainant further stated that after delivery
of articles, he summoned his Tailor Jagbir Singh and came to know that
the cloth which he had purchased was not manufactured by DCM Company.
He approached the officials of DCM Company who stated that certain
varieties of the cloth which were manufactured in the year 1988 could not
be sold by the retail stockists in 1992 as at that time the entire stock would
have been sold.
Petitioner was summoned to stand trial. J.S.Sharda, Marketing
Manager appeared as PW-1. He stated that he was then working as
Additional Marketing Manager. He was in-charge of all outlets of the
Company. He had seen the cash memos which belong to the Retail Store of
the Company. Petitioner was in-charge of the Retail Store. J.S.Sharda PW-
1 had examined the cloth. From the quality of the cloth, it was found that it
was not manufactured by the DCM. PW-2 J.S.Khurana, Sales Supervisor
also appeared and proved the receipt Ex.PD. He also stated that the cloth
was examined and was not manufactured by the Company. Anup Singh
complainant appeared as PW-3.
Three fold arguments have been raised by counsel for the
petitioner. It has been submitted that cloth was not produced in the Court.
The Company officials when examined the cloth had not initialed the same
and thirdly as a in-charge of retail outlet, petitioner could sell the cloth
pertaining to other companies also.
Crl.Rev.No.1592 of 2001 [3]
The cash memos were issued by the petitioner. On the title of
the cash memos, it is specifically written DCM Textiles Mills Retail Show
Room. Therefore, if other cloth was sold, issuance of cash memos of DCM
Company was not required. Cash memo is sufficient to prove the purchase
of the cloth belonging to the DCM company. The complainant immediately
met and approached the DCM officials. They examined the cloth and stated
that it was spurious. Therefore, testimonies of company officials are to be
believed and non production of the cloth in the Court will not be of any
consequence. Petitioner was an agent of DCM Company. Company
officials had no animus to depose against the petitioner. Hence, petitioner
for a profit had sold the spurious cloth to the purchaser. Hence, petitioner is
guilty of the offence and the findings returned by two Courts below cannot
be assailed.
At this stage, Mr.Rajinder Goyal appearing for the petitioner
has stated that in the present case, cloth was purchased on 12.6.1992 and
15.6.1992. 17 years are going to elapse. Petitioner was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/.
Petitioner had undergone about 10 days of sentence. It has been further
submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence during this period.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that complainant can be
compensated.
Taking into consideration protracted trial, conduct and
antecedents of the petitioner, sentence of six months awarded to the
petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine is
enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial
Court within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
Crl.Rev.No.1592 of 2001 [4]
order. The amount of fine so deposited shall be disbursed to the
complainant as compensation. In case the fine is not deposited, benefit of
reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner.
With aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence,
revision petition is disposed off.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
March 5, 2009. JUDGE
RC