Crl. Rev. No. 1282 of 2001 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1282 of 2001 Date of Decision: Dec. 8,2009 Satpal .............................................................. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ............................................. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Sindhu, Addl. A.G. Haryana. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, dated 20.8.1998 and 24.8.1998 respectively vide which he has been convicted under Section 409 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 10.8.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which the appeal filed by him was dismissed. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the Superintendent of Post Office, Hisar, sent a complaint in writing dated 11.1.1988 to the Crl. Rev. No. 1282 of 2001 [ 2 ] police for registration of a case against the petitioner Satpal on the allegations that one Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Banwari Lal of village Banbhori tendered a sum of Rs.7200/- on 22.5.1987 to the petitioner EDBPM Banbhori for opening a new Saving Bank Account. The accused Satpal filled up form SB-103 and its counter foil and affixed the date stamp dated 22.5.1987. The counter foil bears his signatures dated 22.5.1987 in the manuscript which was issued to the depositor Smt. Shanti. The amount of Rs.7200/- was received by the accused but he did not issue a regular receipt form PR-26 dated 22.5.1987 and in fact the amount was not deposited by the petitioner in the Government account of Banbhori Branch Office by him. On persistent enquiries being made by Smt. Shanti, the accused credited the sum of Rs.7200/- in the Government account by preparing a preliminary receipt No.07 (Book No. AH-358910) and a new pass book No. 3157449 was delivered to the depositor on 4.7.1987. The allegation against the petitioner was that he committed an offence by not depositing the amount of Rs.7200/- from 22.5.1987 to 1.7.1987. In the complaint, it was also alleged that one Suresh had given a sum of Rs.100/- and one Om Pati had tendered a sum of Rs.400/- to the accused on 8.7.1987 and these amounts were also not accounted for in the books of Banbhori Branch Office on 8.7.1987 but the sum of Rs.500/- was deposited by him on 22.7.1987. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, formal FIR was registered against the accused. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in Court. Charge under Section 409 IPC was framed against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, vide order dated Crl. Rev. No. 1282 of 2001 [ 3 ] 5.3.1990 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Hawa Singh as PW1, Shiv Narain as PW2, Shanti Devi as PW3, Suresh as PW4, Daler Singh as PW5, Satpal Narula as PW6 and ASI Ganga Ram as PW7 and also relied upon documents Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PA, Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/P and thereafter closed its case. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded. He denied the allegation of the prosecution. The accused pleaded innocence. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. The trial Court after going through the entire evidence led by the prosecution came to the conclusion that Shanti Devi had tendered a sum of Rs.7200/- on 22.5.1987 to the petitioner which the petitioner could not explain. The petitioner also could not explain as to under what circumstances he had kept the amount of Rs.7200/- from 22.5.1987 to 2.7.1987. The petitioner also could not give any explanation as to why he did not deposit an amount of Rs.100/- tendered by Suresh and an amount of Rs.400/- tendered by Om Pati immediately. The petitioner did not account for the aforementioned amount in the books of Banbhori Branch Office. On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide judgment dated 10.8.2001. I have perused the entire record as well as the judgments of both the Courts below. Crl. Rev. No. 1282 of 2001 [ 4 ] A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below clearly shows that Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Banwari Lal had tendered a sum of Rs.7200/- on 22.5.1987 to the petitioner but he did not deposit the same in the Banbhori Branch Office upto 1.7.1987. Thus, the petitioner illegally retained the aforementioned amount from 22.5.1987 to 1.7.1987 and, thus, committed criminal breach of trust. Similarly, a sum of Rs.100/- was tendered by Suresh and a sum of Rs.400/- was tendered by Om Pati to the accused on 8.7.1987 but this amount was also retained by the petitioner and was deposited only on 23.7.1987 and, thus, he misappropriated a sum of Rs.500/- from 8.7.1987 to 22.7.1987 which was taken by him from Suresh and Om Pati and again the accused-petitioner committed criminal breach of trust with regard to the said amount. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has rightly been convicted for the offence under Section 409 IPC. However, a perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that although technically the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs.7200/- from 22.5.1987 upto 1.7.1987 but this amount was deposited by the petitioner on 2.7.1987. Thus, he had illegally retained the amount for a period of about one month and ten days. Similarly, the petitioner had also illegally misappropriated an amount of Rs.500/- from 8.7.1987 upto 22.7.1987 i.e. for a period of about fifteen days. However, this amount was also deposited by the petitioner later on. This shows that neither the depositors nor the Government suffered any loss as the amounts were deposited by the petitioner, although late. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to take a lenient view while passing the order of sentence. Accordingly, I uphold the conviction of the petitioner under Crl. Rev. No. 1282 of 2001 [ 5 ] Section 409 IPC. However, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him and instead direct the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not deposit the fine as ordered by this Court then the petitioner be taken into custody forthwith and he shall serve out the sentence, as imposed by the trial Court. The revision is disposed of in the above terms. 8.12.2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE