-1- Criminal Revision No.929 of 2001. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.929 of 2001. Date of Decision: March 17, 2010. Ishwar Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Ms. Poonam Tara, Advocate, amicus curiae, for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Ishwar Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Section 407 the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter -2- Criminal Revision No.929 of 2001. referred to as `the Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. I have heard Ms. Poonam Tara, Advocate, amicus curiae, appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case. The accused-petitioner was charged under Section 407 of the Code for criminal breach of trust. On 21.4.1983, the accused-petitioner had misappropriated 10000 litres of hexane oil which was being carried by him in tanker No.DHG- 4972. This tanker was despatched for Ganganagar Co-operative Oilseed Processing Mills Limited, Gajsinghpur through Capital Road Lines, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Driver with Capital Road Lines, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. He was directed to carry 10000 litres of hexane oil from Delhi to Gajsinghpur against delivery order No.0017 pertaining to Ganganagar Co-operative Oilseed Processing Mills Limited, Gajsinghpur. The hexane oil was loaded in tuck No.DHG-4972 under the supervision of R.P. Gupta (P.W.2), Deputy Director of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Delhi. He had deposed that on 21.4.1983, -3- Criminal Revision No.929 of 2001. 10000 litres of hexane oil was loaded in tanker No.DHG-4972 under his supervision against delivery order No.0017 pertaining to Ganganagar Co-operative Oilseed Processing Mills Limited, Gajsinghpur and it was to be sent to the said mill through Capital Road Lines Transporter vide Bilty No.829 dated 21.4.1983. Ashok Kumar (P.W.3), Store Clerk of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, deposed that on 21.4.1983 at about 12.15 P.,M, the tanker in question entered the Depot for taking the hexane oil and after filling 10000 litres of this oil against delivery order No.0017, the tanker came out of the Depot at about 6 P.M. B.K.Jain (P.W.1), Plant Manager of Ganganagar Co-operative Oilseed Processing Mills Limited, Gajsinghpur, deposed that they used to take the hexane oil from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Delhi, for utilization in the mill. He stated that 10000 litres of this oil was to be received by them from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through Capital Road Lines, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. He stated that the Plant did not get any information from the transporter of Capital Road Lines regarding the arrival of the hexane oil, but all of a sudden on 23.4.1983 at about 11 A.M they received a telegram from Rohtak regarding the loss of hexane oil, which was issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Delhi, against their delivery order No.0017 and it was mentioned in the telegram that they should reach at the spot. On receipt of that information, B.K. Jain (P.W.1) along with the Managing Director of Ganganagar Co-operative Oilseed Processing Mills Limited, Gajsinghpur reached Rohtak and inquired into the matter. They -4- Criminal Revision No.929 of 2001. came to know that the accused, who was driving the tanker had lodged a false report with the police that the tanker had overturned resulting into the loss of hexane oil accidentally. He has further stated that thereafter they visited the spot mentioned in the report lodged with the police by the accused and on reaching there they neither found the tanker nor the driver. There were no signs of hexane oil, which were bound to occur at the spot in case a tanker had overturned. It was thereafter that the report Exhibit P.A was lodged with the police. Inderjeet Chawla (P.W.4), who is owner of Capital Road Lines, had deposed that tanker No.DHG-4972 along with one another tanker had been taken into possession by the police. He has also stated that tanker No.DHG-4972 was also having some hexane oil. He has admitted that the accused- petitioner was apprehended in his presence. Inspector Bhoop Singh (P.W.5), Central Excise and Customs, stated that the balance hexane oil which was lying in tanker No.DHG-4972 was 7800 kgs. Sub Inspector Om parkash (P.W.6), Investigating Officer of the case, deposed that no hexane oil was found at the spot and he never took any sample of the sand having the mixture of hexane oil. The tanker was not found at the spot. There were no signs of the flow of hexane oil at the spot and, therefore, no sample of sand containing hexane oil was taken from the spot by Sub Inspector Om Parkash (P.W.6). These facts show that the accused-petitioner had lodged a false report (Exhibit P.C) with the police that the tanker in question had overturned when he tried to save one buffalo- cart, which resulted into the loss of hexane oil accidentally. Thus, -5- Criminal Revision No.929 of 2001. there is no escape from the conclusion that it was the petitioner who had misappropriated the hexane oil. In fact, the report lodged by the petitioner with the police i.e Exhibit P.C regarding the overturning of the tanker and alleged loss of hexane oil accidentally cements the case of the prosecution against him that he was driving the tanker in question. He has, thus, rightly been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below. In view of the above, I do not find any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. March 17, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE