IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.962 of 1990 Date of Decision : April 27, 2010 Acchru Kumar Batta ....Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for the C.B.I. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who was posted as an Assistant Store Keeper, alongwith S.S. Aujla, S.D.O. and Balbir Singh, Line Superintendent, was arrayed as accused on the allegations that pursuant to a conspiracy all of them had falsified the documents and embezzled eight drums of A.C.S.R. Zebra Conductor. During investigation of the case, nothing incriminating was found against S.S. Aujla and Balbir Singh and it was concluded that the dominion over eight drums was of the petitioner. He was, accordingly, tried by Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Punjab, Patiala for offences under Sections 409/468/471/477-A IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 27.9.1988, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the aforementioned offences and sentenced him as under :- (a) Under Section 409 IPC, R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. for six months; Criminal Revision No.962 of 1990 -2- (b) Under Section 468 IPC, R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. for two months; (c) Under Section 471 IPC, R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. for two months; and (d) Under Section 477-A IPC, R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. for two months. All the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Punjab, Patiala on 24.11.1990. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was taken into custody. He then filed the present revision, which was admitted on 7.1.1991 and vide order dated 15.1.1991 he was ordered to be released on bail. I have gone through the judgments passed by the learned Courts below and heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is sufficient evidence on the file to establish the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the crime. The petitioner committed misappropriation by making a false entry in the Bin-card that the drums in question were issued to the office of Criminal Revision No.962 of 1990 -3- the S.D.O., S&T, Sub Division, Kurukshetra. He forged the receipt to show that the drums in question were taken away by Balbir Singh, Line Superintendent, to Kurukshetra. He also forged letter dated 2.8.1974 purporting to be from the S.D.O. Kurukshetra under the forged signatures of S.S. Aujla. The petitioner had been harping all throughout that the offence was committed by S.S. Aujla and Balbir Singh and not by him. However, he did not bring on record sufficient material to substantiate his stand. Under these circumstances, there is no other option but to sustain the conviction of the petitioner for the aforementioned offences. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner were initiated in the year 1977. A period of about 33 years has elapsed since then. The trial of the case took more than a decade for its conclusion. The present revision has remained pending in this Court for about 20 years. At the time of the trial, the petitioner was 28 years of age. When he was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had pleaded that he was a poor person with clean antecedents. Moreover, he was the only earning member of his family. It is a fact that out of the maximum sentence of two years imposed upon him, the petitioner has already undergone a period of about two months in jail. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to undergo the remainder of his sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of the Criminal Revision No.962 of 1990 -4- petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon the petitioner for the offence under Section 409 IPC can be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 409/468/471/477-A IPC is maintained. His substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by him. The fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon the petitioner for the offence under Section 409 IPC is enhanced to 20,000/-. The same be deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentence of fine imposed upon the petitioner for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 477-A IPC, alongwith their default clauses, is maintained. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S.MANN ) April 27, 2010 JUDGE satish