Criminal Revision No. 1374 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1374 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.10.2009 Chaman Lal Sarangal ..... Petitioner vs The State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.1.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, vide which he acquitted respondent no. 2 of the charge under Section 409 IPC framed against him. The brief facts are that on the complaint of Chaman Lal Sarangal, Director, Balwant Brothers Private Limited, Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar, FIR No. 58 dated 10.6.1999 under Section 408 IPC was registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar, against Rajinder Singh, respondent no. 2, who was the agent in the aforesaid company, alleging that he had deposited less payments with the complainant than what was collected from the buyers and thereby committed fraud of Rs. 63,127/-. After making lot of efforts, the complainant traced respondent no. 2 and asked for return of money. Respodnent no. 2 admitted in writing on 3.2.1999 that the funds collected by him on behalf of the company had been used by him for his domestic necessities. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against accused-respondent. Initially, he was charged for offence punishable under Section 408 IPC, which was later on corrected as under Section 409 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eleven witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-respondent stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Considering the evidence brought on record in the form of statements of witnesses and documents, learned trial Court, vide order dated 29.1.2008, acquitted the accused- respondent of the charge framed against him. Criminal Revision No. 1374 of 2008 (2) Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner- complainant filed the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below has wrongly acquitted the accused- respondent for the embezzlement of Rs. 63,127/-, which he had admitted on 3.2.1999 in an affidavit, Ex. P8, executed by him to the effect that the funds collected by him on behalf of the company had been used by him for his domestic necessities and he will return the same within fifteen days. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the paper-book carefully. The complainant who appeared as PW1 deposed that due to fire in the factory the original record of the case was destroyed. Permission was granted to lead secondary evidence. However, the prosecution failed to prove how the photocopy of the affidavit, Ex.P8, came into their possession when the original was destroyed in the fire. The affidavit is not even attested. This witness also deposed that authority letter in favour of the accused-respondent was prepared for 45 or 60 days and during this period whatever he recovered, he settled the account with the accountant and thereafter authority letter for further period was issued in his favour and his accountant never complained that the accused-respondent had not settled the account. It has also admitted by him that the company has never filed any case against the accused-respondent for deposit of less amount, rather it was admitted by PW2 Satpal Rajpoot, who was pursing the legal cases of the company, that the accused had filed a case against the company for recovery of his commission. The prosecution has given more stress on Ex.P8 proved on record by PW2 Satpal Rajpoot, who also proved on record the authority letters, Ex. P1 to P7, issued in favour of the accused-respondent from time to time, on which he identified the signatures of the accused-respondent. But when he was cross- examined, he stated that documents, Ex.P1 to P7 are not legible and has not been attested by any competent authority. As has been rightly held by the court below about the affidavit, Ex. P8, that by merely marking a document as an exhibit, it cannot be termed as proved in accordance with law. Moreover, PW4 Amarjit Singh, PW5 Satish Kumar, PW6 Satpal Singh and PW7 Rakesh Mahajan admitted that whenever payments were made to the accused-respondent, he used to deposit the same with his owner and he has never made any cheating in the payment. PW7 further stated that he used to confirm from the proprietor about having received the amount and thereafter placed further orders for supply of goods. In view of these statements and Criminal Revision No. 1374 of 2008 (3) discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the learned court below has gone wrong in acquitting the accused. In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed. 21.10.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge