Crl. Rev. No. 2756 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.2756 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.12.2009 Ashok Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. Petitioners Ashok Kumar and Sham Lal had been convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, under Sections 406 IPC, vide judgment/order dated 9th January, 2006 and were sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment thereof to suffer further RI for one month. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the judgment of their conviction/sentence. The same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Mansa, vide judgment dated October 20, 2009. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioners have approached this court through the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in Crl. Rev. No. 2756 of 2009 2 case conviction of the petitioners is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: A letter written by Kartar Singh, District Manager, Markfed, Mansa was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa for registration of case against M/s Akash Rice Mills, Mansa under Sections 379, 406, 420 IPC read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It was revealed in the said letter that M/s Akash Rice Mills Mansa through its partners Ashok Kumar and Sham Lal, residents of Mansa entered into an agreement with the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED) through its District Manager, Mansa for custom milling of paddy crop for the year 1994-95, on 15.11.1994. As such, Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited stacked the below stock of paddy crop for the year 1994-95 at the premises of M/s Akash Rice Mills, Mansa:- Bags Weight (in quintals) 1. Stock of paddy stored 70000 45500.00 2. Rice delivered 56097 36463.05 3. Paddy issued against rice 56097 36463.05 4. Paddy sold to party 3498 2273.70 5. Balance stock of paddy 10405 6763.25 6. Paddy found physically available on the date of checking -- -- 7. Net shortage 10405 6763.25 Crl. Rev. No. 2756 of 2009 3 It was also mentioned that this stock at Serial No.1 was stored in the premises of M/s Akash Rice Mills, Mansa, but it remained under the possession and control of Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited and that of M/s Akash Rice Mills, Mansa. The accused firm was issued paddy by the complainant against the delivery of advance rice to FCI in the account of the complainant. The firm was left with the stock of 10405 bags weighing 6763.25 quintals. But on physical checking of these stocks, it was found that there was no stock and therefore, there was shortage of 10405 bags weighing 6763.25 quintals amounting to Rs.30,69,265/-. This amount also included cost of Bardana and quality cuts. It was also alleged that the accused firm thereafter without delivering advance rice and without issuing of paddy, without the consent/permission of the complainant, removed from the joint custody of the complainant and criminally misappropriated the stock. The rice out of the stock of paddy, which the accused had misappropriated, was to be delivered to the Food Corporation of India in central pool. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, investigation was got conducted and after completion of the same, challan against the accused/petitioners was presented in the court. Finding a prima facie case, the petitioners were charged under Sections 406 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioners, the Crl. Rev. No. 2756 of 2009 4 prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They denied the allegations of prosecution. However, they did not produce any witness in their defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioners guilty of the charge framed against them and sentenced them as already indicated above. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, referred to above. On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated while holding the petitioners guilty of the charge framed against them. The conviction of the petitioners under Sections 406 IPC is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioners are the only bread winners of their family and have already faced the agony of protracted trial for a number of years. As per reply filed by way of affidavit of Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda, the petitioners had undergone 01 month and 24 days of substantive sentence as on 14.12.2009. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the petitioners are stated to be first offenders and are the Crl. Rev. No. 2756 of 2009 5 only bread winners of their family, their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them but fine is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each. The fine be remitted to Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioners shall undergo the remaining period of sentence, as awarded by the courts below. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 16, 2009 'rajpal'