Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 Date of decision:- 21.12.2010 Telu Ram and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 2. Criminal Revision No. 976 of 2004 Roshan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Advocate General ...Respondent 3. Criminal Revision No. 1025 of 2004 Mian Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 4. Criminal Revision No. 992 of 2004 Ram Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 -2- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners (in Crl. Revision No.950 of 2004). Mr. Bipin Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl. Revision No.976 of 2004). Mr. Divyasarup, Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl. Revision No.1025 of 2004). Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl. Revision No.992 of 2004). Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG Haryana. A.N.JINDAL J. By this common judgment the four revision petitions arising out of the judgment dated 17.4.2004 are being disposed of. The trial Court vide judgment dated 26/27.7.2001 convicted all the five accused-petitioners (herein referred as the 'accused') under Sections 408,477-A,468,120-B IPC and sentenced them as under:- (i) Mian Singh, Roshan Lal and Ram Kumar--rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2000/- each on each count under Sections 408, 477-A, 468 and 120-B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- each on each count under Sections 471,464 and 465 IPC. (ii) Telu Ram and Balbir Singh—rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.2000/-each on each count under Section 120-B IPC. There are two sets of accused. Mian Singh was the Secretary whereas Roshan Lal and Ram Kumar were the clerks as well as salesman of the Dhons Coop. Society, Dhons. Telu Ram and Balbir Singh Dhull were the Clerk and Junior Accountant respectively of the Kaithal Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. Kaithal. Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 -3- On 20.1.1992 Mian Singh, Secretary had deposited a sum of Rs.12200/- vide receipt No.14408 in the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Branch Kaithal but he after adding one (1) digit in front of zero entered a sum of Rs.1,02,200/- in the cash book of Society, thus embezzled a sum of R.90,000/-. While doing so, he tempered the receipt of the bank and the amount was shown as Rs.1,02,200/-. On 27.1.1992. Ram Kumar, Salesman had deposited a sum of Rs.24,000/- vide receipt No.14464 in the Co-operative Bank Branch, Kaithal but in the record of the Society entry was made for a sum of Rs.1,24,000/-, thus, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was embezzled by Mian Singh in connivance with Ram Kumar accused. On 09.6.1992 Roshan Lal Clerk had deposited a sum of Rs.31,300/- in the Central Co-operative Bank Branch, Kaithal vide receipt No.16336 but in the record of the Society a sum of Rs.1,31,300/- has been shown as deposited, thereby a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was embezzled. On 26.6.1992 Mian Singh had deposited a sum of Rs.85200/- in the Central Co-operative Bank Branch Kaithal vide receipt No.16453 but in the cash book of the Society a sum of Rs.1,85,200/- was shown thereby embezzled a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The total amount embezzled by Mian Singh, Secretary and Ram Kumar Salesman and Roshan Lal Clerk in collusion with each other came to Rs.3,90,000/-. On 10.2.1993 a sum of Rs.2,53,290/- were cash in hand of Mian Singh but he embezzled the said amount also as he did not account for the same. On 27.5.1992 the accounts of the Society and the Bank were Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 -4- compared by Balbir Singh Dhull, Junior Accountant and Telu Ram Clerk of the Bank. They were assigned the duties to make comparison of the entries, however, they in collusion with the other accused, made false verification showing no difference as such the amount was embezzled by Mian Singh etc. in conspiracy with the accused Balbir Singh Dhull and Telu Ram. On the aforesaid report, made by Assistant Registrar Co- operative Societies, Kaithal FIR No.52 dated 04.3.1993 was registered against the accused. The Investigating Officer collected whole of the record and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After submission of the charge report against all the five accused, they were charged under Sections 408,420,477-A,468,471,464 and 120-B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Raghbir Singh E.O. Central Co-operative Bank Kaithal, now posted as Branch Manager, Padla (PW1); Inspector Sube Singh (PW2); Udey Singh Branch Manager, Sugar Mills, Kaithal (PW3); Chattar Singh Cashier, Co-op. Bank Branch Kaithal (PW4); Gajjan Singh, Deputy Registrar, Co-op. Society, Head Quarters, Chandigarh (PW5); Mohinder Singh Sandhu, Branch Manager, Karnal, Central Co-op. Bank Karnal (PW6); Chander Bhan Inspector Co-op. Society, Pundri (PW7); Darshan Singh Clerk, Coop. Bank Barsana (PW8); S.I. Amar Singh (PW9); HC Dharambir (PW10); Gian Chand, Retired Inspector (PW11); Gulzar Singh (PW12); Mani Ram Clerk Dhons Coop. Society (PW13); Tirath Ram Gupta retired Inspector Coop. Society (PW14); Sat Pal Secretary Coop. Malikpur (PW15) and HC Baksha Singh (PW16). Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 -5- When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. The trial resulted into conviction. The appeals preferred by them were dismissed. Now, all the five accused have preferred four petitions. It is not disputed that Mian Singh was Secretary of Dhons Coop. Society Dhons at the relevant time. Whereas Roshan Lal was the Clerk and Ram Kumar was the salesman of the said Coop. Society. Telu Ram was Clerk and Balbir Singh was Junior Accountant in the Central Coop. Bank Limited Kurukshetra. Their posting letters Ex.PW8/C and PW8/D proved on the record by PW8 Darshan Singh Clerk, Coop. Bank Barsana have not been disputed. In order to prove the amount of Rs.31,300/-, which was deposited by Roshan Lal vide voucher Ex.PW4/A the prosecution has examined Chatar Singh Cashier (PW4) he has also proved the cash book Ex.PW4/B. He has stated that the said amount was deposited by Roshan Lal. Similarly, he has proved that Mian Singh, Secretary had deposited a sum of Rs.85200/- vide receipt Ex.PW4/C and has also proved the cash book Ex.PW4/D. PW7 Chander Bhan has stated that this amount in the receipt book Ex.PW4/C was tempered by Mian Singh and he by adding digit one (1) made it appear as Rs.1,85,200/- and by adding digit one in the receipt Ex.PW4/A he made it appear as Rs.1,31,300/-. PW6 Mohinder Singh Sandhu, Branch Manager of the Central Coop. Bank Karnal has stated tht he was posted as Manager in the Central Coop. Bank Kaithal. He has proved the voucher of Rs.12,200/- Ex.PW6/E and also proved the copy of cash book Ex.PW6/A. He has also testified that on 27.1.1992, Ram Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 -6- Kumar-petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.24000/- and proved the entry Ex.PW6/F and copy of cash book Ex.PW4/B. He has further deposed about depositing of Rs.31,300/- in the Bank by Roshan Lal accused and has proved the copy of cash book Ex.PW4/B. He has also deposed that a sum of Rs.85200/- was deposited by accused Mian Singh vide Ex.PW5/D. He further deposed about taking into possession the documents vide recovery memo Ex.PB. He has also testified that voucher Ex.PW6/L was for Rs.24,000/- only but the same was made to Rs.1,24,000/- by accused Mian Singh. Similarly, the receipt Ex.PW6/M was of Rs.31,300/- but digit one (1) was added and it was made to appear as Rs.1,31,300/-. He has further stated that vide Ex.PW6/O a sum of Rs.85200/- was deposited but digit one (1) was added to make it appear as Rs.1,85,200/-. Chander Bhan is the star witness in the case. He had held the inquiry. He has testified that as per receipt No.14408 a sum of Rs.12,200/- were deposited in the Bank but in the cash book Ex.PW5/D of the Society, a sum of Rs.1,12,200/- were entered. He has further stated that cash Book Ex.PW5/D is in the hand of Mian Singh accused and bears his signatures. According to him, vide receipt No.14464, Ram Kumar Salesman had deposited a sum of Rs.24,000/- in the Bank vide receipt No.PW7/B. Mian Singh, Secretary while adding digit one (1) in the cash book Ex.PW5/D made it appear as Rs.1,24,000/- and embezzled a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. He has identified the signatures of Mian Singh on Ex.PW5/D. He has further deposed that on 09.6.1992, vide receipt No.16336, Roshan Lal had deposited a sum of Rs.31,300/- in the bank vide receipt Ex.PW7/C but Mian Singh entered a sum of Rs.1,31,300/- in the cash book Ex.PW5/A. He has identified his signatures over the cash book. Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 -7- He has also proved the receipt Ex.PW7/D, voucher Ex.PW4/D and stated that in the cash book of the Society, accused Mian Singh had showed a sum of Rs.1,85,200/- in the cash book Ex.PW5/G. Though, originally a sum of Rs.85200/- was deposited. He also testified that Mian Singh had a cash in hand to the tune of Rs.2,53,290.84/- as on 10.2.1993. He has also stated that reconciliation report was prepared by Telu Ram and Balbir Singh but they failed to show the difference whereas as per Central Bank loan ledger, they should have shown difference between the cash book of the Society and the ledger maintained in the Bank. He has proved the reconciliation reports Ex.PW5/J and PW5/K. Thus, he has stated that all the accused in connivance with each other embezzled a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- and the accused Mian Singh also kept in his possession a sum of Rs.2,53,290.84/- cash in hand. Now, I shall take the case of each set of the accused. As regards Roshan Lal accused, it has been submitted that charge framed against him does not stand established. The allegations against Roshan Lal are that he had deposited a sum of Rs.31,300/- in the Central Bank but the digit one (1) was added by him and it was shown in the records of the Society as Rs.1,31,300/-, thereby he embezzled a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In this regard, I need to go through the statement of PW7 Chander Bhan. He has testified that on 09.6.1992, vide receipt No.16336 Roshan Lal Clerk had deposited a sum of Rs.31,300/- in the Bank vide receipt Ex.PW7/C but in the record of the Society Mian Singh, Secretary entered a sum of Rs.1,31,300/- instead of Rs.31,300/-. Copy of the cash book Ex.PW5/A is bearing the signatures of Mian Singh. This witness has stated that the receipt Ex.PW7/C in connection with deposit of Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 -8- the amount of Rs.31,300/- has not been tempered with but the entry was made to the tune of Rs.1,31,300/- instead of Rs.31,300/-. Thus, in such a situation, Roshan Lal cannot be said to be at fault but it was Mian Singh Secretary of the Society who has been maintaining the records, therefore, he made the wrong entry in the cash book and embezzled the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the said entry. No such evidence has been led on the record if Roshan Lal ever connived with Mian Singh and helped him to make wrong entry in the record. As regards Ram Kumar accused, Chander Bhan PW7 has stated that on 27.1.1992 Ram Kumar had deposited a sum of Rs.24,000/- vide receipt No.14464 Ex.PW7/B but Mian Singh made a wrong entry in the cash book Ex.PW5/E and instead of showing a sum of Rs.24,000/- he showed that a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- was deposited, thus, he embezzled a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Chander Bhan has specifically stated that the relevant entry in the cash book of the Society bears the signatures of Mian Singh and Ram Kumar, therefore, the knowledge of Ram Kumar with regard to making of wrong entry in the cash book cannot be excluded, as such, it would have to be held that Ram Kumar in connivance with Mian Singh must have embezzled the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by making a wrong entry in the cash book. As regards the part played by Telu Ram and Balbir Singh they are the employees of Central Coop. Bank. They were liable and rather duty bound to compare the relevant record of the Society with the Bank account in order the avoid any embezzlement made by the Society and save the bank from such fraud. Both of them had examined and compared the entries in the month of May 1993 but they gave a clean chit Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 -9- after reconciliation and did not point out any embezzlement, whereas, actually there was a difference between cash book maintained by the Society and the ledger maintained in the Central Bank and there was an embezzlement to the tune of Rs.3,90,000/-. I do not agree with the contention of Shri B.R. Gupta, Advocate, their counsel that due to inadvertance, the verification was not correctly made. It is observed that duty of Telu Ram and Balbir Singh was not simply to compare the ledger of the Society and ledger of the bank but their duty was to detect any embezzlement, if committed by the officials of the Society and check if any wrong entry has been reported by them to the Central Bank. The photocopy of the rules book indicates that as per rules the general ledger of the Society and the Bank account and the cash book given by the bank should have the same balance and the officials were required to make the comparison of ledger of the Society and ledger of the bank and point out embezzlement, if any. Had the accused taken little care at the time of comparing the ledger of the Society as well as ledger book of the Bank then certainly they would have detected the embezzlement as per the bank record. The details of the amount deposited alongwith the dates are as under:- Date Amount (Rs.) 20.01.1992 12,200/- 27.01.1992 24,000/- 09/06/92 31,300/- 22.06.1992 85,200/- and the amount deposited as per ledger of the Society is as under:- Date Amount (Rs.) 20.01.1992 1,02,200/- 27.01.1992 1,24,000/- Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 -10- Date Amount (Rs.) 09/06/92 1,31,000/- 22.06.1992 1,85,200/- Since Telu Ram and Balbir Singh had intentionally made false verification in order to facilitate the other accused and allowed them to embezzle the amount, therefore, they are equally guilty alongwith Mian Singh and Ram Kumar. As regards Mian Singh, the main accused, he is the master mind in the case. He, being the Secretary of the Coop. Society Dhons, was holding the cash book. Roshan Lal and Ram Kumar were clerk and salesman of the Coop. Society Dhons at the relevant time. Chander Bhan has identified hand writing of Mian Singh as well as Ram Kumar over the entries made by Mian Singh in the said cash book. Mian Singh is stated to have deposited the embezzled amount, therefore, inference could be drawn that he had tempered with the cash book and one entry was also signed by Ram Kumar and Mian Singh that also shows the complicity of Ram Kumar with Mian Singh in the embezzlement of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in collusion with the other accused. The counsel for the accused has stated that the amount of cash in hand had been deposited in the bank but mere depositing of the said amount is hardly sufficient to exonerate him from the offence committed by him as well as qua the amount of Rs.3,90,000/-, which they had embezzled by tampering the record. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, keeping in view the longevity of the proceedings pending in the Court since 1993 and also that the embezzled amount has been deposited and the accused have already retired from service, it is a fit case where some reduction in the Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2004 -11- sentence could be made. In view of the discussion made above the petition No.976 of 2004 is accepted and judgment qua him is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges fraimed against him, however, qua remaining four petitioners, petitions stand dismissed with the modification of sentence, which is reduced to one year for all the offences without any alteration in the sentence of fine. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently. 21.12.2010 (A.N.JINDAL) Vijay Asija JUDGE