IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2000 Date of Decision : May 17, 2010 Om Parkash ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. S.S.Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S. MANN, J. Alongwith the present revision, the Court intends to dispose of Criminal Revision No. 205 of 2000 filed by Ramesh Chander as both the revisions have arisen out of judgment dated 8.2.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 7/8.2.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar, while convicting and sentencing them under Section 409 IPC, were dismissed. According to the prosecution, on 29.9.1989, Om Parkash- petitioner was Assistant Store Keeper of GLF Workshop, Hisar whereas Ramesh Chander-petitioner was its Foreman. On inspection of the store, Assistant Commissioner, Development, Hisar, found five pieces Crl. Revision No. 174 of 2000 -2- of thrust bearings 51109 were having the mark of GPZ on the cover but GBZ on the part and 49 numbers of hose pipe were having Sandeep and Kisan marks and, therefore, declared them to be duplicate. Accordingly, on the basis of letter dated 4.10.1989 written by Assistant Commissioner, Development, Hisar, FIR No. 440 dated 4.10.1989 was registered at Police Station City, Hisar against the petitioners for offences under Sections 409/109 IPC. During investigation of the case, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Records of GLF Workshop were taken into possession. After completion of necessary investigation, challan was presented against the petitioners. On 15.1.1991, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar framed charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 409 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Sh.S.N.Roy, Assistant Commissioner, Development, Hisar as PW1, Shri Jai Ram Dass Chawla as PW2, Shri R.L.Garg, M.E. as PW3, Kanwar Singh J.M. as PW4, Inspector Jai Narain as PW5 and Manohar Lal as PW6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the petitioners denied the prosecution case. However, they did not examine any defence evidence. Crl. Revision No. 174 of 2000 -3- After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court held that the prosecution had not proved its case in respect of hose pipes whereas criminal breach of trust was proved in respect of only thrust bearings. Accordingly, the petitioners were convicted under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of four months. As mentioned above, separate appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, were dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Both the petitioners were taken into custody there and then. Om Parkash- petitioner filed the present revision in which he was granted the concession of bail vide order dated 1.5.2000 whereas Ramesh Chander- petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 205 of 2000 in which he was also granted bail vide order dated 10.5.2000. Learned counsel for the parties had been heard and the records perused with their able assistance. As per bill Ex.PW4/A, 15 pieces of thrust bearings 51109 GPZ were purchased on 25.11.1988 by GLF, Hisar. These thrust bearings were received in the store vide Ex.PW3/B. Therefore, the bearings with mark GPZ were received in the store which fact stands Crl. Revision No. 174 of 2000 -4- proved from the statements of PW1 S.N.Roy, PW3 R.L.Garg and PW4 Kanwar Singh. However, at the time of inspection, out of the 15 pieces of thrust bearings 51109 GPZ, 5 were available. On the cover of the same, mark GPZ was mentioned whereas on the bearings itself mark GBZ was noticed. Therefore, both the petitioners, who were responsible for keeping the thrust bearings in their possession were shown to have replaced the original thrust bearings with duplicate ones. The petitioners cannot be extended the benefit of doubt on the ground that they were not technical experts so as to know the make of the articles. The petitioners, when they had taken the charge, were supposed to note the numbers of the articles kept in the store. They could have very well come to know while taking the charge or when the articles were received in the store after their purchase that the thrust bearings purchased by the Workshop did not tally with the description as mentioned on the bill Ex.PW4/A. In view of the above, no case is made out for disturbing the findings recorded by the Courts below in convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 409 IPC. The occurrence relates to the year 1989 when the inspection of the store was conducted and FIR registered against the petitioners. Ever since then, they are facing the agony of criminal prosecution. Both of them were arrested on 4.10.1989 during the investigation of the case Crl. Revision No. 174 of 2000 -5- and granted bail on 7.10.1989. Out of the sentence of two years imposed upon the petitioners, Om Parkash has undergone a period of about three months as a convict whereas Ramesh Chander has undergone a period of more than three months as such. When they were heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, both the petitioners had pleaded that they had small children to support. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, their clients are likely to lose their jobs and benefits attached thereto. The revisions filed by the petitioners have remained pending in this Court for more than 10 years. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars, once again, so as to undergo their remaining sentences of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentences of imprisonment of the petitioners are reduced to that already undergone by them. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 409 IPC is maintained. However, their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by the petitioners. The fine alongwith its default clause, is maintained. Criminal Revision Nos. 174 of 2000 and 205 of 2000 are, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) Crl. Revision No. 174 of 2000 -6- May 17, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1