Criminal Revision No.637 of 2006 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.637 of 2006 Date of Decision: 23.03.2011. Sukhdev Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, D.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision arises out of the following facts: Sukhdev Singh-petitioner was Postal Assistant in the Head Post Office, Jagraon in the year 1992. Jit Kaur (PW-2) and Sushil Kumar had accounts in the Post Office, Jagraon bearing Nos. 200414 and 200712 respectively. On January 15th, 1992, Sushil Kumar deposited an amount of `12,000/- in the Post Office. The entry, initialled and impressed with the date stamp in respect of deposit was made in his pass book (Exhibit P-3) by the petitioner. On March 4th, 1992, Kartar Singh (PW-3), husband of Jit Kaur (PW-2), deposited an amount of Rs.7000/- in the account of Jit Kaur. The entry of deposit made in her pass book (Exhibit P-2) was initialled and stamped by the petitioner. However, the amount of ` 12,000/- and ` 7,000/- was neither deposited in the Post Office by the petitioner nor any entry was made in the Long/Transaction book. In the year 1994, Senior Superintendent, Post Offices, Ludhiana directed Parkash Singh (PW-4) Sub Divisional Inspector, Post Offices, Jagraon to conduct the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted by him and vide report (Exhibit PD), it was found that petitioner did not deposit the amount in the Post Office. Om Parkash Talwar, Criminal Revision No.637 of 2006 2 .. Superintendent, Post Office, Ludhiana filed complaint dated November 15th, 1994 (Exhibit P-1) to Station House Officer, Jagraon with regard to misappropriation of the aforesaid amount by the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint (Exhibit P-1), First Information Report No. 276 dated December 6th, 1994 was registered against the petitioner under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. 2. On completion of investigation, the accused was charged for offence punishable under Section 409 IPC of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses viz. Om Parkash Talwar (PW-1), Jit Kaur (PW-2), Kartar Singh (PW-3), Parkash Singh, Sub Divisional Inspector (PW- 4), Karnail Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-5), Nachhattar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-6), Gurdev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW- 7) and Manpreet Singh (PW-8). 4. In his examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-respondent denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. 5. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated July 17th, 2002 convicted the petitioner under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of `2000/- with default stipulation. 6. Aggrieved of the said judgment, petitioner preferred appeal which was partly accepted by Additional Sessions Judge (ADHOC) Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated March 8th, 2006, whereby, conviction of the petitioner under Section 409 IPC was maintained but the sentence was reduced from two years to one year. 7. By filing this revision, petitioner has challenged the aforesaid judgments of the Courts below. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the Criminal Revision No.637 of 2006 3 .. judgments of the Courts below on two grounds that (i) Kartar Singh (PW-3) has deposed that he came to know about the misappropriation of the amount on May 12th, 1993 but did not lodge any complaint to the Police or the officials of the Postal Department; and (ii) prosecution failed to prove that the amount was deposited by the depositors with the petitioner. 9. It may be stated at the outset that so far as misappropriation of Rs.12,000/- by the petitioner is concerned, learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the prosecution evidence on the short ground that Sushil Kumar-depositor did not appear in the witness box to depose that the amount deposited by him in the Post Office, was paid to Sukhdev Singh-petitioner. Against the said finding, State has not filed any revision. 10. Now the only question that remains to be adjudicated upon is - whether the amount of Rs. 7000/- was deposited by Kartar Singh (PW-3) in the Post Office and was paid to Sukhdev Singh - petitioner or not? It is not in dispute that on March 4th, 1992, Sukhdev Singh was Postal Assistant in the Post Office, Jagraon. Kartar Singh (PW-3) has deposed that he deposited an amount of ` 7,000/- on March 4th, 1992 and the amount was paid to the petitioner. The entry in the pass-book (Exhibit P-2) was made by him. Parkash Singh, Sub Divisional Inspector (PW-4) has categorically stated that during enquiry conducted by him, he found that the entry in the pass-book (Exhibit P-2) was made by the petitioner and he impressed date stamp on the pass-book. He also identified the initials of the petitioner on it. The matter does not rest here. Pass book (Exhibit P-2) was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab. Vide report (Exhibit PH), it was opined that the initials on Exhibit P-2 show similarities with the standard signatures/initials of the petitioner. However, it was stated that it was not “possible to express any definite opinion as the questioned initials are limited in extent”. The sum and substance of the evidence led by the prosecution proves that amount of ` 7,000/- was paid by Kartar Criminal Revision No.637 of 2006 4 .. Singh (PW-3) to the petitioner on March 4th, 1992. The amount was shown to have been deposited in the pass-book (Exhibit P-2), which was duly initialled by the petitioner with date stamp. Thus, the question formulated is answered accordingly. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that judgments of Courts below were perfectly justifiable. The revision petition is dismissed. 13. The revisionist is on bail. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of the sentence. Learned trial Magistrate is directed to comply with this order under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 23.03.2011 som Criminal Revision No.637 of 2006 5 ..