Criminal Revision No. 1472 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1472 of 2002 Date of Decision: 1.4.2010 Jang Bahadur …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate for Mr. Rupinder Singh Khosla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Jang Bahadur, who was named as an accused in case FIR No. 130 dated 9.11.1995, registered at Police Station Mohali, under Section 408 IPC. The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, vide its impugned judgment dated 9.11.2000, held the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 408 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, while upholding the conviction and maintaining the sentence, has Criminal Revision No. 1472 of 2002 2 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition. The petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 408 IPC. The charge stated that the petitioner remained as a Secretary of the Upper Co-operative Society Limited, Khumbra. During the period from 11.5.1991 to 16.6.1993, he collected an amount of Rs.82,351/- from Bachan Singh, Ajaib Singh, Teja Singh and Harchand Singh and others, members of the Society but instead of depositing it in the account of the Society, he had embezzled the same. Prosecution examined Harchand Singh as PW.1, Bhupinder Kaur as PW.2, and Teja Singh as PW.3, members of the Society, who stated that the loan, taken from the Society, was repaid and the amount was entrusted to the petitioner. PW.2 Bhupinder Kaur has stated that an entry was made in the pass-book regarding repayment of loan by the petitioner and she proved pass book Ex.P3. PW.3 Teja Singh proved pass book Ex.PW.3/A in which the petitioner had made an entry showing the outstanding amount of loan as Nil. It has been conclusively proved on record that the repaid amount of loan by the members was received by the petitioner. He had made entries in the pass books but had embezzled the same. Besides these three members, PW.4 Gian Chand, Salesman, PW.5 Bachhitar Singh, Inspector/Auditor, PW.6 Bakhshish Chand, Assistant Registrar and Jaswant Singh, President of the Society, have been examined. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. Criminal Revision No. 1472 of 2002 3 Gian Chand, Salesman, who was examined by the prosecution as PW.4, was also examined by the petitioner as DW.1. He proved Audit notes for the year 1991-92 and inspection notes for the years 1991 and 1993, the original thereof are Ex.D2 and Ex.D3, respectively. DW.2 Amar Singh proved the appreciation certificate issued to the petitioner by the Society. Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Rupinder Singh Khosla, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, has contended that in the present case, it has come in the evidence that the petitioner was a temporary employee of the Society, therefore, Section 408 IPC is not attracted. Secondly, it is submitted that signatures of the petitioner on the pass-books have not been proved and the Handwriting Expert was not examined. Thirdly, it is contended that the detail of accounts of the Society have not been produced to say that the amount was not deposited by the petitioner in Society's account. These arguments cannot absolve the petitioner of his guilt. It has been deposed by the members of the Society that they had entrusted the amount to the petitioner, who had made entries to this effect, in their pass-books, while the amount received had not been deposited by him in Society's account. Section 408 IPC spell no distinction between permanent and temporary employee. Thus, I find no infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below who have rightly convicted the petitioner. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount was embezzled in the year 1993, the FIR was registered after a Criminal Revision No. 1472 of 2002 4 delay of two years i.e. in the year 1995, therefore, on the ground of delay, the petitioner deserves acquittal of the charges. It was when the fraud was detected, the FIR was lodged, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim his acquittal on this score alone also. Learned counsel humbly submits that the petitioner has faced a protracted trial for a period of about 15 years. He is a sole bread earner of his family. He has undergone about two months out of two years' sentence awarded to him. Therefore, under these mitigating circumstances, sentence of petitioner should be reduced to already undergone. I am not inclined to accept the prayer for reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner to already undergone. However, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to nine months, taking protracted trial as mitigating circumstance. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 1, 2010 “DK”