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