IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2906 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 01, 2011 Shavinder Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Harpreet S. Rakhra, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 408 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years coupled with fine of `2,000/-. The Appellate Court has reduced the sentenced of RI from three years RI as was awarded by the trial Court to two years RI. The allegation against the petitioner, who was working as a Secretary of the Co-operative Society, is that he has misappropriated the amount and embezzled the stock. 23 witnesses were examined and the evidence, which can be culled out from their version, would clearly show that the petitioner was appointed as a Secretary of the Co-operative Society. He was also made responsible for the stocks as well as for handling the cash. It is proved on record that the receipts were issued to the members but amounts shown in the receipts were not entered in the account/cash book. Inspector Harjinder Singh was examined as PW21 to prove that there was shortage of 323 bags of urea, 45 bags of DAP, 90 Criminal Revision No.2906 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : liters of Fenwal, 60 liters of Choloro Priphos pesticide. There is evidence on record that the petitioner was having the custody of these stocks. Even resolution has been proved on record to show that powers were given to the accused-petitioner to handle stock, deal with cash, collect money from members and deposit the amount in the bank. It is only in his absence that Cashier Balwant Singh was responsible for collecting the cash and depositing the same in the Bank. In view of this clear and categorical evidence, no case for interference in the revision petition is made out. The sentence imposed is adequate and would not call for any interference. Dismissed. December 01, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE