Criminal Revision No. 804 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 804 of 2003. Date of Decision : 20.4.2011 Surjit Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Amicus-Curaie, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Surjit Singh-petitioner has filed this revision challenging the judgment dated March 26th, 2002 of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated October 21st, 1999 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sangrur whereby, petitioner was convicted under Section 408 of Indian Penal code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation. 2. Earlier, petitioner was being represented by Sh. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate. On February 14th, 2011 Sh. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate made a statement that inspite of his best efforts, he could not contact the petitioner. The Station House Officer of Police Station concerned was also directed to inform the date of hearing to the petitioner but the Police official failed to contact him. A report has been received from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur that petitioner's whereabouts are not known since 20/21 years. In view of this, this Court appoints Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, as amicus Criminal Revision No. 804 of 2003 2 Curaie to defend the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was working as Inspector in PUNSUP, a Government undertaking, at Bhawanigarh in the year 1984. During his posting at Bhawanigarh, wheat procured by PUNSUP from the Grain Market was entrusted to the petitioner for being kept in the godown of the PUNSUP. He was transferred from Bhawanigarh to Ferozepur on April 10th, 1987. He did not hand over charge to Gurmail Singh-his successor. A Committee comprising of Teja Singh, District Manager, Harminder Singh, Field Officer, Kewal Krishan, Senior Auditor and Naib Tehsildar, Sangrur was constituted to hand over charge to Gurmail Singh. On checking, it was found that 3752 bags of wheat weighing 6567 quintal, 74 kg and 491 gms were deficient in the stock. On audit conducted by Amritpal Singh, Senior Assistant Accounts (PW-3) and Harbilas Accountant (PW-5), wheat stock worth Rs.15,61,737/- and Bardana (empty jute bags) worth Rs.36,000/- were found to have been misappropriated by the petitioner. 4. On completion of investigation, the petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. 5. Prosecution in support of their case examined Sarup Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-1), Daljit Kaur (PW-2), Amritpal Singh (PW-3), Teja Singh (PW-4), Harbilas (PW-5) and Kishan Chand (PW-6). 6. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied his complicity with the offence in question and pleaded innocence. 7. In this case, it is not in dispute that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Inspector at Bhawanigarh. He was entrusted wheat to store the same in the godown at Bhawanigarh. He was transferred from Bhawanigarh to Ferozepour on April 10th, 1987. At the time of relieving charge, he did not hand over the charge to Gurmail Singh. The PUNSUP appointed a committee comprising of Teja Singh, District Manager (PW-4), Harminder Singh, Field Officer, Criminal Revision No. 804 of 2003 3 Kewal Krishan, Senior Auditor and Naib Tehsildar, Sangrur and they found shortage of 3752 bags of wheat weighing 6567 quintal, 74 kg and 491 gms in the stock as deposed by Teja Singh (PW-4). Not only that, members of the committee viz. Amritpal Singh, Senior Assistant Accounts (PW-3) and Harbilas, Accountant (PW-5) also proved shortage by the audit report (Exhibit PW-5/A). They have also spoken that shortage of wheat was worth Rs.15,61,737/- and that of empty jute bags worth Rs.36,000/- and an amount of Rs.23,058/- in cash. By calculation, the total amount comes to Rs.16,20,785/-. All these aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined by learned counsel for the petitioner but no flaw could be pointed out in their testimony. Their statements are based on the documentary evidence which the petitioner failed to rebut. A combined and thorough reading of the evidence brings it home that the quantity of wheat was entrusted to the petitioner in his capacity of being Inspector, PUNSUP. The quantity of wheat, jute bags and even cash was found deficient to the extent stated above. Once, the entrustment was proved, it was for the petitioner to explain it but no explanation much less a satisfactory one has been furnished. The only presumption and conclusion would be that the deficiency in the stock of wheat, jute bags and the cash was misappropriated by the petitioner. With this overwhelming evidence brought on record, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below correctly appreciated the evidence and as such the same does not admit of any interference. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed. 8. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. 20.4.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE