In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-9712 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:20.4.2009 Gagandeep Sharma .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Rohit Khullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on the statement of Swaran Singh (complainant) for the offence under Section 408 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short). It is alleged by the complainant-Swaran Singh that he is working as Manager, Venus Garments Industries Limited, Ludhiana. The said firm has many show rooms in different cities. In order to check records of daily sale on computer, one Gurmail Singh resident of Ludhiana had been engaged. Due to his accident on 13.12.2008 the checking of sale of all the show rooms could not be done. On 29.11.2008, a new show room of Venus Garments was opened at 13, Lawrence Road, Amritsar. In the said show room, the petitioner was engaged as In-charge. He had to deposit the total sale of the show room daily in the bank. However, on 19.12.2008 the sale of show room was checked and it transpired that an amount of Rs.1,88,802/- Cr. Misc. No.M-9712 of 2009 [2] was not accounted for in the bank. When the petitioner was asked as to why he had not deposited the said amount, he put off the matter. Then on 22.12.2008 the show room was checked but the petitioner was not available at the show room. Therefore, by not depositing the amount of Rs.1,88,802/- it is alleged that the petitioner committed fraud with the company. Accordingly, FIR was registered on 24.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was engaged as a salesman with the Venus Garments and his main job was to show the products at the showroom to the customers by taking them from the show-case and putting them back after showing the items to the customers. A salesman, it is submitted, has nothing to do with cash payments as cash is maintained by the In-charge. Even the payments of sale of products are made to the In-charge by the customers and the salesman has nothing to do with the sale/cash of the show room. It is submitted that in fact a co-employee of the petitioner, namely, Harjinder Kumar had deposed an affidavit dated 26.3.2009 to the effect that he was working as salesman with the Venus Garments with co-employees Dilbag Singh and the petitioner and their job was to show the products to the customers and they do not deal with cash. Besides, the payments are not received by them from the customers. Rather, the payments are made to the In-charge at the payment counter. It is submitted that in order to save the real culprits the petitioner is being made a scapegoat. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the custody of the petitioner is required so as to unearth the various misappropriations that have been committed by him. A profile of the petitioner has been submitted which was given by him at the time of seeking Cr. Misc. No.M-9712 of 2009 [3] appointment as a salesman in which under the heading “job responsibilities” it is mentioned as handling cash departments, cheque clearing, safety vaults and advances. Besides, the petitioner has mentioned that he has been working with the ICICI Bank Limited for four years from 2004 to 2008. As such, it is submitted that it cannot be said that the work of the petitioner was only that of a salesman and he had nothing to do with the cash. It is submitted that in garments stores, a salesman who can handle cash is normally also assigned the duty of handling the cash as an arrangement and the nature of actual job on which he is engaged is not to be taken as the sole criteria for determining the criminal liability. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It may be noticed that one Gurmail Singh had been engaged for checking the daily sale of various stores of Venus Garments. However, he had met with an accident on 13.12.2008, on account of which the checking of the show rooms could not be done. The petitioner was a salesman at the Venus Garments that was opened at 13, Lawrence Road, Amritsar. He used to handle the cash deposit and daily deposit the sale proceedings in the bank. On 19.12.2008, it was noticed that an amount of Rs.1,88,802/- was not accounted for in the bank and when the petitioner was asked about it he put-off the matter. Then he was unavailable when the show room was checked. The nature of duties that were performed by the petitioner were one of confidence in which he was entrusted with the cash on behalf of the Venus Garments. The petitioner is being proceeded against for the offence under Section 408 IPC which relates to criminal breach of trust by Clerk or servant. The offence under Section 408 IPC is of a higher degree than mere criminal breach of trust Cr. Misc. No.M-9712 of 2009 [4] which is punishable under Section 406 IPC. The petitioner being in custody of the cash and dealing with the same is liable to account for the same and he cannot say that because he was engaged as a salesman and he had no dealing with the cash he is not liable. The job profile of the petitioner shows that he mentioned in his application for appointment that he has been handling cash; besides, he has worked with the ICICI Bank Limited for four years. In the circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required for the purpose of ascertaining and gathering information with regard to the embezzlement that has occurred. The exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is extra-ordinary in character. The facts and circumstances of the present case do not warrant the release of the petitioner in the event of his arrest. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. April 20, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*