Criminal Revision No.231 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.231 to 237 of 2003 Date of Decision 06.01.2010 Harjinder Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Bipin Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, D.A.G., Punjab, for the respondent-State of Punjab. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Aforesaid seven revision petitions Nos.231 to 237 of 2003 have been preferred by the petitioner-accused Harjinder Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner'), posted as a clerk in the office of District Transport Office, Sangrur, in the year 1990, against the judgment dated 21.01.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, upholding his conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangrur, vide judgment dated 16.10.1999, under Sections 409 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in all the seven cases. The petitioner remained posted as clerk in the office of District Transport Office, Sangrur and was assigned the duty to collect the daily collection and maintain the daily cash collection register. On 01.04.1991, it was found that he had collected more amount but deposited less in the treasury, embezzling a sum of Rs.2,81,592/- in between the period from 27.09.1990 to 20.03.1991. He, while working as a clerk, used to collect the money from general public towards the charges regarding licencing and registration but was not deposited in the treasury with the same ratio. Thereafter, he went absent from duty w.e.f. 21.03.1991. As such, finding embezzlement on his part, a case F.I.R.No.91 dated 15.04.1991 under Criminal Revision No.231 of 2003 2 Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 201 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Sangrur. The case has been investigated in seven separate challans and were presented in the Court with regard to the different defalcations. In all the cases, he was charged for the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The evidence was recorded as per the allegations in different challans. On closure of the prosecution case, the petitioner-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in all the cases to which he pleaded his false implication. In defence, the petitioner examined DW1 Rajinder Sobti, Auditor, office of State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, who proved documents Ex.D1 to D12 and also examined DW2 Kuldeep Kaur in all the cases. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court vide judgment dated 16.10.1999, passed in all seven challans, convicted the petitioner under Sections 409 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. The appeals preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgments, were dismissed by a consolidated judgment dated 21.01,.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Arguments heard. Record perused. The main attack of the learned counsel for the petitioner over the impugned judgment is that neither the entrustment nor the misappropriation stand proved in the case. He has urged that PW Piare Lal, the sole material witness in the case failed to produce the relevant record except a letter Ex.PW12/1 and in the absence of original record, his statement cannot be relied. In this regard, reliance has been placed over the judgment delivered in case D.Venkata Rao and another versus State represented by S.I.of Police, Pentapadu PS W.G. District 2000 (4) 365 (Andhra Pradesh) where it was observed that in the absence of the proof of the cash book which he said to have been verified by PW2, who conducted the statutory inquiry, it was not safe to rely upon the oral evidence of PW2. Having heard the contentions, the same is found without any merit irrespective of the ill conduct of the petitioner that he even denied his appointment and posting at the relevant time which duly stand proved from the official records. Not only this, immediately after the scandal came to Criminal Revision No.231 of 2003 3 light, he ran away. It stands established that the amount was actually collected by him from different persons, while working as clerk in the office of District Transport Office, Sangrur during the period of 27.09.1990 till 20.03.1991. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the entrustment of amount and even both the Courts below have consistently taken the view that the petitioner, being the clerk in the office of District Transport Office, Sangrur, being deputed to collect the cash and maintain the record, has been collecting the money as aforesaid. PW Pyare Lal (Retired District Treasury Officer, Sangrur) has given his statement as per original record and prepared the letter Ex.PW12/1 as per the original record. He testified that the following amount has not been deposited in the treasury under the head No.0041 pertaining to Motor Vehicle Tax:- Amount Date Rs.8848/- 27.09.1990 Rs.17301/- 16.10.1990 Rs.29354/- 07.12.1990 Rs.19082/- 19.12.1990 Rs.54729/- 17.01.1991 Rs.30027/- 25.01.1991 Rs.17496/- 26.01.1991 Rs.17001/- 04.02.1991 Rs.23,030 11.02.1991 Rs.28,166 14.02.1991 Rs.26,847/- 28.02.1991 Rs.15,383/- 20.03.1991 Actually, amount of Rs.9082/- was deposited instead of Rs.19082/- on 19.12.1990, an amount of Rs.7001/- was deposited instead of Rs.17001/- and Rs.8166/- was deposited instead of Rs.28166/-. He also proved the letter Ex.P1 and Ex.PW12/1. There is nothing to suggest that PW Pyare Lal did not make the statement from the original record. Rather, he has categorically stated that he is making the statement as per original record. The defence counsel did not ask him even a single question that he has not made statement from the original record or his statement is not as per record. It is also well settled by now that the testimony of a witness if not challenged by way of cross-examination would be taken to be admitted. Both the Courts below have consistently opined regarding the guilt of the accused and the accused had no plausible or possible defence to make. The scope of interference by this Court at the revisional stage is very limited in Criminal Revision No.231 of 2003 4 nature. Only perversity and arbitrariness would be the sole suggesting factor for interference. Mere irregularity in conducting of the trial which could be cured or the possible second opinion can in no way be said to be the good ground for interference. As regards the quantum of sentence, the trial Court has already awarded sentence on the lower side and the Appellate Court has refused to interfere, therefore, no interference could be called for. Even otherwise, to exercise discretion for reducing sentence in favour of such persons would not in any way favour the cause of the society. Thus, finding no merit in the aforesaid seven revision petitions, the same are dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 06.01.2010 mamta-II