Criminal Revision No. 1066 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1066 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 23, 2009 Jasbir Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.S.Joshi,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner was convicted under Sections 409,466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 12..4.2001 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 409 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- under Section 446 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 471 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala vide judgment dated 15.3.2002. Hence, the present revision petition. Criminal Revision No. 1066 of 2002 2 The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “The facts, in brief, are that Sh. G.S.Saran, PCS, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, sent a complaint Ex.PF to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala, on 7.1.1997. The allegations, contained in the said complaint, were with regard to the dishonest misappropriation of diet money of Rs.60/- by Jasbir Singh, Process Server, in connivance with Bachi Singh, Nazir, at that time, posted in his Court. It was further stated that a case titled as Mohinder Singh vs. Surjit Kaur and others, bearing No.692 of 22.10.1994, was pending, in that Court. Mohinder Singh plaintiff had deposited the diet money of witnesses Kaur Singh and Puran Singh, to the extent of Rs.30/- each against entry No. 893 of A register of shariff petty account of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Barnala. This amount of Rs.60/- was entrusted to Sh. Jasbir Singh, Process Server, Barnala, on 21.10.95 against serial no.780 of B-register of Sheriff-Petty account. The summons of the witnesses, aforesaid, were issued by the Court of Sh.G.S.Saran, on 20.11.95 and were entrusted to Sh.Jasbir Singh, Process Server for the service of the witnesses, but the service of the witnesss was not effected. However, Jasbir Singh, Process Server, did not return the diet money to the Nazir. Thereafter, the summons were issued for the service of the witnesses for 21.11.96. The service of Puran Singh witness was not effected, but the service of Kaur Singh was effected. However, both the witnesses appeared in the Court on 21.11.96 and their statements Criminal Revision No. 1066 of 2002 3 were recorded on that day. The docket in form no.8 for Rs.30/- each was issued by the Court and was sent to the Nazir for payment. Since the diet money was not returned by Jasbir Singh, Proces Server, Bachi Singh, Nazir in connivance with Jasbir Singh, Process Server paid the amount of Rs.30/- each to Puran Singh and Kaur Singh, witnesses, by taking the same from him (Jasbir Singh). Bachi Singh Nazir, did not enter these forms, in the disbursement register or reported back to that Court, that the diet money of these witnesses had not been returned by Jasbir Singh, Process Server. On 26.11.96, the matter came to the notice of Sh.G.S.Saran, Addl. Cvil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Barnala and he summoned the diet money register of Jasbir singh, Process Server. It was found on checking of diet money register of Jasbir Singh that he had shown disbursement of the diet money to Puran Singh and Kaur Singh on 20.11.95. It was further stated that when the service of these witnesses was not effected, for the aforesaid date, the diet money could not be paid to the witnesses. The matter was found suspicious. Bachi Singh Nazir was called for and form no.8 of Rs.30/- each of Kaur Singh and Puran Singh, was recovered from his possession, where he obtained the signatures of the witnesses, but did not make report about the disbursement or that the diet money had not been returned by Jasbir Singh, Process Server. Sh.G.S.Saran then called the witnesses Kaur Singh and Puran Singh, by issuing fresh notice to them for 28.11.96 and recorded their statements. Both of them stated that they were served in that case as witnesses, but no payment of diet money Criminal Revision No. 1066 of 2002 4 was made to them by the concerned process server and when the docket was issued by the Court for payment of diet money, then payment was made by Bachi Singh, Nazir, after obtaining the payment from the process server on 21.11.96. It was further stated by Kaur Singh and Puran Singh that the thumb impression/signatures in diet money register of Jasbir Singh, Process Server, did not belong to them. They also identified Jasbir Singh, Process Server, from whom Bachi Singh, Nazir had taken the amount and paid to them. Sh.G.S.Saran, Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Barnala, thus came to the conclusion that Jasbir Singh, Process Server had dishonestly misappropriated the amount of Rs.60/- as diet money and had fabricated the record, with regard to the payment thereof, to the witnesses, aforesaid. The Court concerned also came to the conclusion that Bachi Singh, Nazir had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Jasbir Singh, Process Server and tried to hushup the matter, with regard to the embezzlement of the diet money." Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 409,466 and 471 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone more than one year of actual sentence. The amount involved in this case was Rs.60/-. Petitioner has been facing criminal proceedings since the year 1997. Petitioner has already lost his job. Petitioner is not the previous convict. Criminal Revision No. 1066 of 2002 5 Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 409,466 and 471 IPC is maintained and the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of. (Sabina) Judge April 23, 2009 arya