Crl. Revision No.1827 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1827 of 2005 Date of Decision: August 30, 2010 Jagmal Singh and another .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Kshitij Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 19.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala (hereinafter referred as “Appellate Court”) whereby judgment and order, dated 14/20.2.2003, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. (hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”) convicting the petitioners was upheld and the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment Crl. Revision No.1827 of 2005 -2- for seven days and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in paras 2 and 3 of the Trial Court judgment, are as under: “Gajjan Singh, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies sent a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala alleging therein that the accused Jagmal Singh, Ex-Secretary of the Barara Co-operative Society had embezzled an amount of Rs.44,966/- including Rs.44,321/- which was recovered from the members of the Society but not entered in the books or in the record of the Society; Rs.440/- recovered from new members of the Society as share money but was never entered in the record of the society; Rs.4177/- was shown as cash in hand in day book at page No.13 & 7 but the same was mis-appropriated; Rs.27-28 shown as a less stock amount was mis-appropriated. The Society Inspector issued a notice to Jagmal and Ashok Kumar on 3.3.86 to deposit the said amount in the Society but they failed to do so and hence the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, FIR No.40/88 was registered under Section 408 IPC, P.S.Mullana. During investigation, the record of the Co-operative Society, Barara was taken into police custody. The receipt allegedly issued by the accused was also taken into custody; Crl. Revision No.1827 of 2005 -3- pass books of various members were also taken into custody. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. On completion of usual steps of investigation, final police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Was submitted in the court. Copies of Police report as well as documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused, free of costs, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. ” 3. The accused-petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 408/420 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses, viz., Kewal Kishan as PW1; Hans Raj as PW2; Dev Hans, Clerk of the Co-operative Bank as PW3; Raj Kumar as PW4, SI Arun Kumar as PW5; Dharamvir as PW6; Dharam Pal as PW7; Des Raj as PW8; Rajbir Singh as PW9; Brij Bhushan as PW10; Sham Singh as PW11; Banta Ram as PW12; Tara Chand as PW13; Phera Singh as PW14; Kultar Singh as PW15; Brij Bhushan as PW16; Suresh Chand as PW17; Ravinder as PW18; Mahinder as PW19; Parkash as PW20; Karam Chand as PW21 and Ramesh Chand as PW22. 5. Statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegations and pleaded their false implication. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners for a term as noticed in para 1 of this judgment. 7. The present revision petition was admitted on 21.11.2005 and Crl. Revision No.1827 of 2005 -4- the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence awarded by the Trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the State has produced on record the custody certificates of the petitioners and submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioners as the offence stands proved. 10. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 27.2.1988. Thus, the petitioners have suffered a protracted trial for about 12-1/2 years. As per custody certificates, both the petitioners have already undergone sentence for two months and 10 days. They have not misused the concession of bail. 11. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of about 12-1/2 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. 12. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- each besides the fine already imposed by the Trial Court. They shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala Crl. Revision No.1827 of 2005 -5- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of fine, Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to the complainant-Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Rs.10,000/- shall go to the State as litigation charges. 13. In case, the petitioners fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of enhanced fine with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 14. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 19.9.2005 and that of the Trial Court dated 14/20.2.2003 is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) August 30, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No