Criminal Revision No. 2389 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2389 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.7.2009 The Central Co-operative Bank, Gehlan Branch .. Petitioner v. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Rajesh Bindal J. Criminal Misc. No. 100933 of 2007 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 552 days in filing the petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Criminal Revision No. 2389 of 2007 The petitioner is before this Court challenging the judgment dated 30.3.2006, passed by the learned court below, whereby after trial respondent No. 2 has been acquitted of the charge framed against him. The FIR in question was registered on the statement of Angrez Singh Preet, Senior Manager of Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Sangrur with the allegations that on 1.5.2005, at about 10.00 A.M., some unknown person from village Gehlan informed him telephonically that theft had taken place in the branch of the Bank at Gehlan. A finger of suspicion was raised against the Manager/Clerk, as he was the sole in-charge of the branch. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 409 IPC. The accused-respondent No. 2 pleaded Criminal Revision No. 2389 of 2007 [2] not guilty and claimed trial. After considering the evidence led by the parties during trial, the learned court below acquitted him finding that the prosecution had not been able to bring home the clinching material, which could enable the court to record a finding of guilt against respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, respondent No. 2 was the sole in-charge of the bank. He had the keys of the safe, where the cash had been kept. He being the sole custodian thereof was responsible for its safe custody. The case involved theft of Rs. 31,98,350/-. In fact, it is respondent No. 2 only who is responsible for it. The safe was found opened, which was possible only with the keys, as it was only the lock of the main gate which was broken and not the safe. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that even the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case set up in the FIR. There is no material on record to suggest that the safe where the cash was lying was opened with keys, rather, the lock thereof was broken. The bank had not provided any Chowkidar in the branch. Respondent No. 2 had to remain on duty from 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. The theft had taken place during night. There was one set of keys available with the Head Office and it could not be presumed that it is only respondent No. 2, who could open the safe with the keys available with him. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The prosecution witnesses, especially the Senior Manager-Angrez Singh, on whose statement the FIR was registered, categorically denied in the Court that while getting the FIR registered, he got anyone's name mentioned therein on suspicion as he got the FIR registered only regarding theft. There is a categoric finding by the learned court below in the impugned judgment that locks of the safe were found broken. No material could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, which could enable this Court to reach to a conclusion that the finding so recorded was perverse. Accordingly, the submission to the effect that the safe in fact had been opened with the keys available with respondent No. 2 is totally misconceived. Even otherwise, the story sought to be projected by the prosecution that respondent No. 2 had taken the Investigating Officer to Jaipur for recovery of the amount also could not be substantiated as no material was produced on record to prove that respondent No. 2 was ever taken to Jaipur for effecting recovery of the money. Criminal Revision No. 2389 of 2007 [3] For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.7.2009 mk