Crl. Revision No.1973 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1973 of 2004 Date of decision: October 31, 2011 Jagjit Cotton Mills Ltd.(J.C.T.) Phagwara .....Petitioner VERSUS Akhil Shukla ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Revision Nos.1973 of 2004, 383 and 384 of 2005. For the ease of discussion and order, the facts have been noted from Criminal Revision No.1973 of 2004. Petitioner-Jagjit Cotton Mills Ltd. has filed this petition to impugn the order dated 8.5.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, acquitting respondent- Akhil Shukla in three cases of embezzlement separately filed against the sole respondent. As can be noticed, the respondent was tried for offences under Section 420/467/468/471 IPC. It is pleaded that the case against the respondent in all three revision petitions stood fully established on the basis of evidence and the Trial Court was not justified in recording the acquittal. The case of the prosecution is that FIR was registered on the basis of application received from Harish Thapar, General Manager (L&IR) addressed to DSP, Phagwara against the accused/respondent. As per the application, the respondent was working with the petitioner-firm in the Store Department and was assigned the work of sale of empty drums, boxes, coal ash and wood for the last Crl. Revision No.1973 of 2004 -2- three years. For the sale of the these items, deposit of cash including maintenance of the records was exclusively handled by the respondent. The sale used to be done on the predetermined rates and sale of coal ash used to be done on the basis of per trolly/truck. Cash memo used to be issued by Store Department. For the sale of the above goods, the transactions so carried were recorded in the sale register and in the end of a month, this register along with cash memos book was sent to the Accounts Department for checking. Sale proceeds for the month were deposited with the main cash in office. On 26.8.1998, Mr. R.K. Middha, Asstt. Manager (Accounts) checked the sale register and found totalling error in the register. For the purpose of cross checking, he also checked cash memo books and found that register was having made on the above cash memos only but on the routine monthly checking the cash memos which were sent to the Accounts Department were duplicate or parallel maintained by the respondent. He found huge difference in the totalling also. Accordingly, this complaint was lodged with the allegation that funds to the tune of `5,42,062/- were found embezzled by the respondent. In support of the allegation, the petitioner had examined almost 12 witnesses. The accused made statement in his defence and denied the allegation made as well as the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. The prosecution, accordingly, alleged that on the basis of evidence, it has been proved that the respondent had cheated the petitioner-firm by inducing them to deliver various sums on different dates by manipulating documents. The defence on the other hand was that no offence against the accused was proved as the alleged/forged cash memos were not produced in the Court and neither they were taken into possession. The trial Court examined the evidence in the light of legal position. No doubt, Ashok Kumar PW-8 deposed that whenever old stock is taken out from the mill, its gate pass is checked. The payment used to be made to the Crl. Revision No.1973 of 2004 -3- accused. His evidence to an extent was contradicted by PW-11 Banwari Lal Sharma. He was incharge of the store at the relevant time and the respondent- accused along with five/six other persons were working under him. PW-11 had deposed that the accused used to collect the amount for sale of waste material and then deposited the same in cash department. On 26.5.1998, PW-11 received message from R.K. Midda, Asstt. Manager (Accounts) for taking of sale register and he had, accordingly, directed the respondent to do the needful. R.K. Midda had also demanded the cash book and thereafter, the respondent had left the office on that day without information and did not return to the factory. Discrepancies, accordingly, were found and the register was handed over to the Police. During the cross-examination, however, these witnesses deposed that they maintained cash memos/register, which was taken to the Accounts Department. As per PW-11, the Accounts Department used to collect the cash after tallying the entries with cash register and cash memo. The Court found that this statement falsified the statement of PW-8 Ashok Kumar to the effect that he made payment of drums to the respondent in the presence of other officials. PW-6 Hardip Singh and PW-7 Balwinder Singh deposed that the job of the respondent was to sell the scrap and old material and issue cash memos after entering the same in the stock register. This statement has been read in the light of evidence given by Banwari Lal PW-11 to the effect that cash memos were maintained by the department which were taken to accounts department. As per his evidence, Accounts Department used to collect the cash after tallying the entries in cash register and cash memo. Accordingly, the Court found that the respondent was only maintaining cash memos and money was being collected by the Accounts Department. The cash collected in the store section, which its incharge used to be deposited in the cash section. Neither any evidence was led nor the cash memos were produced before the Court. A view is possible that the prosecution was not able to establish the charge against the respondent. Though there may be possibility of another view, but that alone would not be sufficient to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In this Crl. Revision No.1973 of 2004 -4- regard, reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(10) SCC 461. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the order of acquittal at this belated stage. The criminal revisions are, accordingly, dismissed. October 31, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE