Crl. Revision Nos.1569 to 1582 of 2002. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1569 of 2002. DECIDED ON : 20.2.2009 Inder Singh Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. Respondent. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr.J.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab JORA SINGH,J. This single judgment of mine will dispose of 14 Criminal Revision Nos. 1569 1570, 1571, 1572, 1573, 1574, 1575, 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579, 1580, 1581 and 1582 of 2002 filed by Inder Singh son of Ishar Singh, resident of village Manak- majra, District Ludhiana to impugn the judgment dated 3.6.2002 rendered by Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which appeal filed by Inder Singh against the judgment/order dated 19.1.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib in Police Challan No. 76-T, First Crl. Revision Nos.1569 to 1582 of 2002. 2 Information Report No. 28 dated 19.4.1988, under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Khamanon, was dismissed. Prosecution story, in brief, is that District Education Officer, Ludhiana wrote letter No. 7/88-1853 dated 6.4.1988 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana on the allegation that Inder Singh while posted as Clerk in Senior Secondary School, Raipur Majri, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana has embezzled Rs. 1,10,600/- from 8/82 to 4/87. As per letter Ex.PW9/A inquiry was conducted. Allegations in the letter were found to be correct by the Inquiry Officer, vide Inquiry Report Ex. PW 9/B. After registering criminal case, investigation was conducted thoroughly. Relevant record in possession of the accused was taken into police possession. Accused was arrested on 27.8.1988. 14 different challans for different years were prepared and presented in the Court. After hearing Public Prosecutor for the State and defence counsel for the accused, trial Court found that a prima facie case under Sections 467/471 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Evidence was led by the prosecution. Crl. Revision Nos.1569 to 1582 of 2002. 3 After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the allegations levelled against him. He denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that he had not embezzled the amount. He did not forge the signatures of Headmaster Sucha Singh. However, he has admitted that he was dealing with the GPF account. Work at the relevant time but drawing and disbursing Officer powers were with the Head Master of the School. No defence was led. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the defence counsel and also from the perusal of the evidence, learned trial Court opined that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sections 467/471 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code; Inder Singh was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Crl. Revision Nos.1569 to 1582 of 2002. 4 Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 19.1.2002 by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Fatehgerh Sahib, appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 3.6.2002. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 3.6.2002, revision was preferred by Inder Singh. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that Inder Singh had no authority to withdraw payment from the G.P.F. account on behalf of any employee. There was no inquiry. Prosecution has miserably failed to connect the revisionist with the crime. Witnesses were very much interested in the success of this case. Out of 42 vouchers only 10 vouchers were produced in the Court. Original vouchers were withheld. There was delay in lodging the First Information Report. Vouchers were signed by Sucha Singh. Occurrence was during the years 1982 to 1987. Revisionist was a poor clerk. If the Court is of the opinion that crime was committed by the revisionist then lenient view be taken. Revisionist be released on probation. Mr. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab argued that as per evidence on the file, Crl. Revision Nos.1569 to 1582 of 2002. 5 revisionist was a clerk in the Senior High Secondary School, Raipur Majri. Sucha Singh was the Headmaster. Revisionist was dealing with the GPF account. By forging the signature of Headmaster. Different amounts on behalf of different employees were withdrawn from the GPF account. There was an inquiry. Ex.PW9/B is the Inquiry Report. Disputed signatures of the Headmaster were compared. Signatures were found to be forged one. Judgment of the Lower Court was upheld by the First Appellate Court. No expert was examined by the revisionist to prove that the disputed signatures were of the Headmaster. Evidence on the file shows that Inder Singh was clerk in Senior High Secondary School, Raipur Majri. Sucha Singh was the Headmaster in the above said School from 1981 to 1987. This fact is also an admitted one that Inder Singh revisionist was authorized to hand over and take over bills. Sucha Singh was the drawing and disbursing Officer. Only dispute is whether revisionist had forged the signatures of DDO to withdraw payment from the GPF account. As per letter Ex.PW9/A by the DEO, Ludhiana, case was registered after inquiry by Sanctional Officer, Crl. Revision Nos.1569 to 1582 of 2002. 6 DEO Office, Ludhiana. Ex.PW9/B is the Inquiry report. As per Inquiry Report, revisionist had withdrawn Rs.1,10,600/- from the GPF account on behalf of different employees of the School. Revisionist did not participate in the Inquiry proceedings. If the revisionist was not at fault then he should have appeared before the Inquiry Officer. Evidence could be led that vouchers were not forged to withdraw payment. As discussed earlier, Inder Singh was maintaining GPF account of the employees. Sucha Singh had appeared in Court and stated that his signatures were forged to withdraw payment without making entry in the register of the school. Evidence further shows that revisionist while posted in another school had also misappropriated near about Rs.40,000/-. Rs.430/- per month was being deducted from the salary of the revisionist. When the revisionist did not participate in the inquiry proceedings then at this stage revisionist cannot argue that there was no inquiry. If inquiry was ex parte then order could easily be challenged before appellate authority. When the revisionist was in service and inquiry was being held then question is what prevented the revisionist to participate in the inquiry proceedings. He had not appeared before the Inquiry Officer. Some of the Crl. Revision Nos.1569 to 1582 of 2002. 7 original withdrawal vouchers were produced before the police. 42 copies of original vouchers were produced. Opportunity was given to the revisionist to join the inquiry and explain his position but without any reason, revisionist did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. No case of the revisionist that there was no withdrawal from the G.P.F. account. Number of employees namely Shanti Devi, Ranjit and Pritam Kaur appeared in Court and stated that they had not withdrawn payment from their G.P.F. account but different payments were found to be withdrawn from their G.P.F. account. Revisionist was dealing with the G.P.F., account and he was to explain how payment was withdrawn if he had not prepared the relevant bills for withdrawal of payment. While dealing with the GPF account of the employees, revisionist was to prepare the relevant papers. Only after that payment was to be withdrawn as per authority of the DDO. But in the case in hand, without authority of the DDO, signatures of the DDO were forged to withdraw payment from GPF account. Revisionist while dealing with the GPF account was to explain how withdrawal was made without authority of the DDO by appearing before the Inquiry Officer. Revisionist was to explain his position but Crl. Revision Nos.1569 to 1582 of 2002. 8 without any reason revisionist did not appear before the Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer had no enmity with the revisionist. Inquiry report coupled with the report of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court rightly opined that revisionist by forging the signatures of DDO had withdrawn payment from the G.P.F. account on behalf of different employees. No other submission was put forward. In view of all discussed above, revisions No. 1569 to 1582 of 2002 are devoid of any merit and the same are, hereby, rejected. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib to issue arrest warrant against revisionist to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. 20.2.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) Anoop JUDGE