IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2291 of 2003 Date of decision: 3rd March, 2010 Kashmira Singh … Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the respondent – U.T. Chandigarh. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner was employed as a Conductor, having tag No.C-4 in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Corporation’), Chandigarh Depot. The petitioner was assigned duty of long route buses of the Corporation. The petitioner was named as accused in case FIR No.180 dated 15.11.1993 registered at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh under Sections 409/467/468/471 IPC. The trial Court acquitted the petitioner for offence under Section 409 IPC on the technical ground that the amount gathered by selling forged tickets was not lawful entrustment and, therefore, no offence of criminal misappropriation was made out. However, the trial Court sentenced the petitioner for offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC as under: Serial No. u/s Sentence 1. 467 IPC To undergo RI for two years & to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. 2. 468 IPC To undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month. Criminal Revision No. 2291 of 2003 3. 471 IPC To undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner went in appeal. The appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and further held that the acquittal of the petitioner for offence under Section 409 IPC was bad, but since there was no State appeal, there was no need to disturb the same. The lower appellate Court further held that the forged tickets sold by the petitioner could not be determined as valuable securities, as defined in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and acquitted the petitioner for offence under Section 467 IPC. However, the appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 468 and 471 IPC. It is a case of its own kind. The petitioner, in discharge of his duty, was given the tickets of various denominations. This Court is concerned with 100 tickets of denomination of Rs.20/- commencing from Serial No.826301 to 826400. To curb the misappropriation of the tickets and corruption, inspecting staff has been employed by the Corporation to check the buses at random to verify as to whether the tickets are genuinely sold by the conductors, whether the passengers are not made to take a free ride permitting the conductor to pocket the sale proceeds. One such inspection was carried on 11th August, 1993. The inspecting staff found that out of the series bearing Serial No.826301 to 826400, petitioner had sold 57 tickets. Another inspecting team on 23rd September, 1993 found that the petitioner had sold 60 tickets from the same series, i.e. Serial No.826301 to 826400. Lastly, on 24th September, 1993, when the petitioner was caught and the crime perpetuated by him was unearthed, he had sold 48 tickets starting from Serial No.826301 to 826348 and remaining 52 tickets 2 Criminal Revision No. 2291 of 2003 were taken into possession from the petitioner. Thus, out of the said 100 tickets, balance of 52 tickets were retained and the petitioner had sold 165 tickets (57 + 60 + 48). How this magic could work ? The trial Court, relying upon the evidence of the witnesses, came to the conclusion that the forged tickets were sold and circulated by the petitioner. This finding of the trial Court has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court also. Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has stated that 32 tickets were recovered from the passengers and those tickets were genuine as per Ex.D1. This argument cannot absolve the petitioner of the crime, as the tickets were recovered on 24th September, 1993 out of which 48 tickets were sold. What the petitioner is not able to account for, is 57 tickets sold on 11th August, 1993 and 60 tickets sold on 23rd September, 1993. Therefore, on the day when the petitioner was caught, the tickets being genuine, will not absolve him of the sale of earlier tickets. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that entries made on Ex.P1 and P2 are by the Inspector and the same are not signed by the petitioner. This argument is also to be rejected. In the routine, after an inspection is carried, the entry is made by the Inspector and the conductor is not supposed to sign the same. Furthermore, the argument raised that wrong preparation of waybills shall only entail the petitioner with a departmental enquiry and not with criminal liability, cannot be accepted, as circulation of the tickets which are not genuine, has been rightly held by the two courts below to be a forgery. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon ‘Darbari Lal and another v. State of Punjab’ 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 312 to state that in a similarly situated case, the sentence was reduced to already undergone. In the present case, forged tickets were sold and a loss was 3 Criminal Revision No. 2291 of 2003 caused to the public exchequer, therefore, the judgment rendered in Darbari Lal’s case (supra) is not attracted. No patent illegality or irregularity is discernible from the findings of the two courts below, therefore, the same cannot be disturbed. This Court will not re-appreciate or do re-appraisal of the evidence. However, in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1993. Taking into consideration that the petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial of more than 16 years, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced from one year to nine months rigorous imprisonment. With the modification in sentence ordered above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 3, 2010 rps 4