Criminal Revision No.2123 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2123 of 2005. Date of Decision: 10.3.2011. Rajesh Sharma ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated October 19th, 2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Kaithal affirming the judgment of conviction dated February 14th, 2001 and order of sentence dated February 19th, 2001 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal whereby, petitioner was convicted under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- with default stipulation. 2. The petitioner was working as Sales Assistant in the shop “The Weaver” situated at Koel Tourist Complex, Kaithal in the year 1989. The outlet was of Haryana State Handloom and Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Chandigarh (for short 'the corporation'). Vide credit bills (Exhibits PW-5/C to PW-5/F) he sold articles to M/s Hitkari Handloom, Hisar on December 30th, 1988 for an amount of Rs.10,323.32ps, on January 7th, 1989 for an amount of Rs.17,324.33ps and on January 7th, 1989 for Rs.12,506.80ps to M/s Suman Handloom, Kaithal, that is, in total for a sum of Rs.44,744.33ps. 3. Later on, M/s Hitkari Handloom, Hisar denied that Criminal Revision No.2123 of 2005 2 it received any material from 'The Weaver' through the petitioner and the whereabouts of M/s Suman Handloom, Kaithal could not be known. On the basis of applications dated February 6th, 1990 and February 16th, 1990 (Exhibits PA & PB) filed by the Corporation, First Information Report was registered against the petitioner. It was also alleged that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.500/- from the account of 'The Weaver' to Rattan Singh, Peon for purchasing dress. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was not a case of criminal breach of trust rather the material was given by the petitioner to the aforesaid firms on credit but the firms later on denied. However, to purchase peace of mind and to avoid the consequences, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.44,744.33ps, a fact which is not refuted by the State counsel. It was also stated by the counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the amount having been deposited by the petitioner and he having undergone the actual sentence of about 4 months, he has been dismissed from service. He prays that the conviction of the petitioner be maintained but the period of sentence be reduced to the one already undergone. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner being convincing, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but reduces his sentence to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. 6. The revision is accepted partly in the manner indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 10.3.2011. SN