Criminal Revision No. 882 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 882 of 2002 Date of Decision: 19.03.2009 Labh Singh son of Mehar Singh, resident of village Bhurthala Mandar. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision is directed against the judgement, dated 24.08.01, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which, it partly accepted the appeal, reducing the substantive sentence to one and a half years, from three years, against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.09.99, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, vide which, it convicted the accused (now revision-petitioner) for the offence, punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to undergo further Criminal Revision No. 882 of 2002 2 rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Labh Singh, accused (now revision-petitioner), was the Secretary of Cooperative Agricultural Society, Manvi, from 1981 to 1985. Being the servant of the Society, he was entrusted a sum of Rs. 6392.59/-, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. The case was registered against the accused. He was arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 408, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against him, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Balwinder Singh (PW1), Niranjan Singh (PW2), Mukhtiar Singh (PW3), Bachhitar Singh (PW4), Mukhtiar Singh son of Labh Singh (PW5), Bhupinder Singh (PW6), Darshan Singh (PW7), Karnail Singh (PW8), Bhagwan Singh (PW9), Mehar Singh (PW10), Balwant Singh (PW11), Dial Singh (PW12), Bakhshish Singh (PW13), Darshan Singh, Clerk, office of Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Malerkotla (PW14), Kapoor Singh (PW15) (wrongly numbered as PW 13), Baldev Singh (PW16) (wrongly numbered as PW14), Des Raj (Retd.) Assistant Sub Inspector (PW17) (wrongly numbered as PW15), and Malkiat Singh (PW18) (wrongly numbered as PW16). Thereafter, Criminal Revision No. 882 of 2002 3 the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that he was merely a servant of the Society and had nothing to do with the money received from the members of the same (Society). He examined Gursewak Singh (DW1), and Bhupinder Singh (DW2), in defence. Thereafter, he closed his defence evidence. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, it acquitted him, for the offences, punishable under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant (now revision-petitioner), which was partly accepted, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, reducing the substantive sentence awarded to him to one and a half years. 8. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, was filed by the revision-petitioner. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not challenge Criminal Revision No. 882 of 2002 4 the conviction, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court. Even otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the same, as the Courts below, on correct appreciation of the cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence of Niranjan Singh, PW2, a member of the Society, who deposited a sum of Rs. 5990/-, alongwith interest to the tune of Rs. 340/-, on 29.11.1982, with Labh Singh, accused, who made an entry in his pass-book P1, Mukhtiar Singh, PW3, another member, who deposed that Labh Singh, accused, had received Rs. 2005/- as principal amount and Rs. 115/- as interest from him on 20.05.83 and made an entry in his pass book, Bachittar Singh, PW4, who deposed that a sum of Rs. 5925/- was paid by him to the accused, but he made an entry of Rs. 2613/- only in the day book, Bhupinder Singh, PW6, Salesman of the aforesaid Society, who identified the signatures of Labh Singh, on various documents, Darshan Singh, PW7, who also identified the signatures of Labh Singh, on PW7/A to PW7/G and also proved the amount deposited by various members with the accused, by way of repayment of loan, Karnail Singh, PW8, Inspector of the Society, who was posted as Administrator from 19.05.1973 to 20.10.1973, proved the resolution dated 21.05.1973, Bhagwan Singh, PW9, who was President of the aforesaid Society from 1978 to 1982, and who on 09.06.1983, deposited a sum of Rs. 3682/-, alongwith interest to the tune of Rs. 318/-, and a sum of Rs. 11,610/-, on 12.11.1983, alongwith interest of Rs. 470/-, with Labh Singh, Kapoor Singh, PW13 (in fact PW15), another member, who had Criminal Revision No. 882 of 2002 5 deposited the entire amount due against him with Labh Singh, on 06.03.1983, and Baldev Singh, PW14 (infact PW16), who had deposited Rs. 470/- with Labh Singh, accused, came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 6392.59/-, in this challan, was entrusted to the accused, which he dishonestly misappropriated. The Courts below were also right, in coming to the conclusion that, as such, the accused committed the offence, punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. It is settled principle of law, that in its revisional jurisdiction, the Court is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings, recorded by the Courts below, are either illegal or perverse or erroneous, on account of mis-reading of evidence. The careful perusal of the judgements of the Courts below, in context with the evidence, produced by the prosecution, referred to above, does not indicate that the findings of guilt recorded, are either perverse or illegal or erroneous on account of the mis-reading of evidence. Under these circumstances, the findings of the Courts below, holding the accused guilty for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and recording his conviction, for the same, do not warrant any interference, and deserve to be upheld. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 22.10.1985, the date of registration of the case against him i.e. for the last more than 23 years. He further submitted Criminal Revision No. 882 of 2002 6 that the revision-petitioner has not committed any other offence, after the registration of the aforesaid case against him. He further submitted that the revision-petitioner has already undergone 10 months of sentence, and lenient view be taken against him, by reducing the same, to the period already undergone. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, appears to be correct. Since the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, for the last more than 23 years, he must have suffered a lot of mental agony and physical pain. The amount of embezzlement, also could not be said to be huge, so as to deny him the concession of lenient punishment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the factum that the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings for the last more than 23 years, and is aged about 70 years, as is evident from the record, and has also not committed any other offence, after the registration of the aforesaid case, as submitted by his Counsel, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which, by taking lenient view, the sentence awarded to him, should be reduced to a period of 10 months, while maintaining the sentence of fine, and in default of payment of the same. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner to this extent is accepted. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition is partly accepted. The judgements of conviction of the Courts below, are upheld. The order of sentence is modified, in the manner, that the revision-petitioner, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Criminal Revision No. 882 of 2002 7 10 months, instead of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years, awarded by the First Appellate Court, whereas, the sentence of fine and sentence awarded in default of payment of fine, shall remain intact. The substantive sentence reduced, in this case, shall run concurrently with the substantive sentence awarded by way of reduction in Criminal Revision Nos. 883 of 2002, 884 of 2002, 885 of 2002, 886 of 2002, 887 of 2002, 888 of 2002, and 889 of 2002. 13. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the judgement promptly on receipt of a certified copy thereof, keeping in view the applicability of provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19.03.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) AMODH JUDGE