Criminal Revision No. 1945 of 2007 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1945 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.8.2009 Darshan Singh ..... Petitioner vs Nathu Ram ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Kuldeep V. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 20.3.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide which he accepted the appeal against the order of conviction and sentence dated 9.3.2006, rendered by Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, and acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him. The brief facts are that on the complaint of Hans Raj, Inspector, co- operative Societies, Karandi Focal Point, Sardulgarh, FIR No. 123 dated 3.8.1985 under Section 409 IPC was registered at Police Station Sardulgarh against Nathu Ram, respondent, who was the Manager of the Sardulgarh Cooperative Agriculture Services Society, Sardulgarh (for short, “the Society”) alleging that he has received Rs. 2,572/- on 16.6.1982 deposited by Mukhtiar Singh, Rs. 300/- on 17.8.1982 by Arjan Puri and Rs. 600/- on 11.9.1992 by Munshi Ram, members of the society. But, the amount, so received was not entered by him in the cash book and was misappropriated as Manager of the Society. The pass book of Munshi Ram was also taken into possession during investigation and specimen signatures were also sent for comparison to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented. He was charged for offence punishable under Section 409 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW1 Resham Singh, PW2 Mukhtiar Singh, PW3 Tara Singh, PW4 Lajja Ram, PW5 Gurdev Singh and PW6 Sita Kumar. After tendering the reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex. PY, and specimen signatures of the Criminal Revision No. 1945 of 2007 (2) accused-respondent, the prosecution closed the evidence. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Considering the evidence brought on record in the form of statements of witnesses and documents, learned trial Court, convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Feeling aggrieved, against the order dated 9.3.2006, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, the respondent filed appeal which was accepted by Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide order dated 20.3.2007, whereby he acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him. Dissatisfied with the order dated 20.3.2007, the petitioner filed the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly acquitted the respondent for the embezzlement of Rs. 75,276.20 paise received by him from the various members of the Society. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force as the charge against the respondent in this case was only with regard to the embezzlement of Rs. 2,572/- on 16.6.1982 deposited by Mukhtiar Singh, Rs. 300/- on 17.8.1982 by Arjan Puri and Rs. 600/- on 11.9.1992 by Munshi Ram, members of the society. Out of these members of the Society, the prosecution has not examined Arjan Puri and Munshi Ram for the reasons best known to it and examined only Mukhtiar Singh who deposed that the money deposited by him had been credited in his account by the accused-respondent. The material witnesses PW1 Resham Singh and PW3 Tara Singh, who were members of the Inquiry Team, deposed that they had not seen the pass- books of the members issued by the Society nor obtained the photo copies from the members. It has also come in the statement of PW1 Resham Singh that there is no entry with regard to the amount of Rs. 600/- in the name of Munshi Ram in the pass-book. Neither original record of the Society was brought during his cross- examination with regard to the entry of Rs. 600/- nor the record pertaining to Mukhtiar Singh and Arjan Puri was produced. PW3 Tara Singh had also deposed during his cross-examination that he had not seen the ledger-book of the Society and stated that it is for the Cashier to maintain cash-book and ledger-book and for any default in the books of account, it is only the Cashier who is responsible. The respondent in the present case was Manager of the Society. In view of these discrepancies, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused. Criminal Revision No. 1945 of 2007 (3) The prosecution has also failed to produce the person who had obtained the specimen signatures/ handwriting of the accused. In the absence of such a material witness, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also could not be relied upon and the learned Sessions Judge, thus, cannot be said to have gone wrong in acquitting the respondent. In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed. 17.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge