Criminal Revision No. 344 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Criminal Revision No. 344 of 2006. Date of Decision: 21.3.2011. Har Sarup Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent (2) Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2006. Date of Decision: 21.3.2011. Dhanpat Rai ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for Har Sarup Sharma-petitioner. Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for Dhanpat Rai-petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This judgment would dispose of above mentioned two revisions as the same have been filed against the common judgment. 2. This revision arises out of the following facts:- Babli-complainant (PW-12) was an employee of the Municipal Committee, Bhiwani. She was deputed in the Bhiwani Improvement Trust (for short “the Trust”). She worked in the Trust for Criminal Revision No. 344 of 2006 2 two months viz. March and April, 1993. She again joined Municipal Committee in the month of June, 1993. At that time, Dhanpat- petitioner (since deceased), was Clerk, Har Sarup Sharma-petitioner was Work Inspector in the Trust. Bhim Singh and Laxman co- accused of the petitioners were Municipal Commissioners of Municipal Committee, Bhiwani. 3. Allegations, in brief, against Dhanpat were that he prepared muster rolls for the month of June, July, August, September, October and November 1993 (Exhibits PW-6/F, PW-6/G, PW-11/A, PW-11/B, PW-11/C and PW-6/A respectively) showing that salary was paid to Babli. Muster Roll (Exhibit PW-6/F) was passed by S.P. Bose Trust Engineer (PW6) and attested by President, Municipal Committee, Bhiwani. Muster Roll (Exhibit PW-6/G) was also attested by S.P. Bose (PW-6) and the President, Municipal Committee, Bhiwani. (Exhibit PW-11/A) was passed by Har Sarup Sharma, Works Inspector because S.P. Bose, Junior Engineer was on leave and it was attested by the President, Municipal Committee, Bhiwani. Muster Roll (Exhibit PW-11/B) was passed by Har Sarup Sharma. It was also attested by the President, Municipal committee, Bhim Singh and Laxman, Municipal Commissioners, Bhiwani. Muster Roll (Exhibit PW-11/C) was passed by Dhanpat and attested by the President and Laxman, Municipal Commissioner. Muster Roll (Exhibit PW-6/A) was passed by S.P. Bose. J.E (PW-6) and attested by the President, Municipal Committee. It was verified by Laxman, Municipal Commissioner. 4. On completion of investigation, Har Sarup, Dhanpat Ram, Bhim Singh and Laxman were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 409,467,468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty, they were brought to trial. 5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani by judgment of conviction dated March 24th, 2004 convicted all the four accused under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and a half years with fine of Rs.1500/-, one and a half years with fine of Rs.200/- and Criminal Revision No. 344 of 2006 3 one year respectively. 6. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioners along with their co-accused filed appeal. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani by judgment dated February 3rd, 2006 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners whereas he acquitted Bhim Singh and Laxman. 7. By filing present revision, the judgments passed by the Courts below have been impugned. 8. During pendency of the revision, Dhanpat expired so, the revision filed by him stands abated. 9. Harsarup was charged for passing the salary bill of employees of the Trust for the month of August, 1993. The entire amount was withdrawn in order to make payment to the employees through cheque signed by the President, Municipal Committee, Bhiwani. Har Sarup passed the same because Engineer of the Trust was on leave on that day as has been mentioned in the muster roll. The muster roll was duly signed by the President, Municipal Committee, Bhiwani and it was prepared by Dhanpat. The trial Magistrate has also pointed out that the entire act of embezzlement was done by Dhanpat. Surprisingly, S.P. Bose (PW-6)-the person who prepared the earlier and latter muster rolls showing that payment was made to Babli, was not made an accused by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Muster roll (Exhibit PW-11/B) was attested by Bhim Singh and Laxman, Municipal Commissioners, who verified that the salary was paid to the employees mentioned in it including Babli in their presence and the muster roll was duly attested by the President of the Municipal Committee. The muster roll (PW- 11/C) was also attested by Laxman, Municipal Commissioner, Bhiwani again mentioning that the payment was made to the employees of the Trust in his presence and the name of Babli figures therein. Same is the position in the muster roll (Exhibit PW-6/A) but learned Sessions Judge acquitted Bhim Singh and Laxman but convicted Har Sarup. In considered opinion of this Court, case of the Har Sarup was on better footing than that of Bhim Singh and Laxamn as Har Sarup passed bill because Trust Engineer was on leave. It is Criminal Revision No. 344 of 2006 4 not the case of the prosecution that he identified any employee of the Trust shown in the muster roll whereas Bhim Singh and Laxman, Municipal Commissioners clearly stated that they identified the employees including Babli. As has been stated above, the entire amount was withdrawn from the Trust account through cheques. Dhantpat after preparing the muster roll, placed the same before the President and the Municipal Commissioners and they approved it and that is why, the cheque was issued by the President to withdraw salary of the employees shown in the muster roll. Not only that, Bhim Singh and Laxman verified that payment was made to the employees in their presence. In view of this, it cannot be said that Har Sarup- petitioner at all embezzled the amount of the Trust, as alleged. 10. In this view of the matter, both the Courts below fell in error in convicting and sentencing Har Sarup. Thus, revision filed by him is accepted and the judgments and orders under challenge are set-aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges. 21.3.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE