Pramod Kumar Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Operation and execution of the impugned sentence suspended till further orders, subject to furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, an undertaking to appear and serve sentence in case of dismissal of the present revision, and deposit of the fine amount (if not deposited earlier) within a period of one month; the suspension application (Cr.MP No. 3676 of 2025) stands disposed of while the revision remains pending adjudication with records of the courts below requisitioned.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 403 and 409 IPC is sustainable, given the Court's prima facie view that Section 403 IPC does not require entrustment whereas Section 409 IPC requires it. +1 more

Court's answer

Prima facie, the conviction of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 403 and 409 IPC is not sustainable: in Section 403 IPC the property is innocently acquired and wrongfully retained and entrustment is not required, whereas in Section 409 IPC the property is acquired with the consent of the owner but dishonestly misappropriated and entrustment is required.

Ratio / Principle

There are arguable points in the present revision which require adjudication; accordingly, the records of the courts below were directed to be requisitioned.

Key takeaways

The operation and execution of the impugned sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (HP) shall remain suspended till further orders, subject to furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/-, an undertaking to appear and serve sentence in case of dismissal of the revision, and deposit of the fine amount, if not deposited earlier, within one month.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order in Cr. Revision No. 475 of 2025 (reserved 25.08.2025, decided 02.09.2025) by Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. The petitioner, convicted by the learned Trial Court (judgment dated 29.05.2024; order dated 11.06.2024) under Sections 403, 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC — on allegations that, while posted as a Single Window Operator, he transferred the pension of various persons to the accounts of the co-accused and his relatives — with the sentence affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (HP) in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2024 dated 29.07.2025, sought suspension of sentence (Cr.MP No. 3676 of 2025). Observing prima facie that conviction under Sections 403 and 409 IPC is not sustainable because Section 403 IPC does not require entrustment whereas Section 409 IPC does, the Court found arguable points in the revision, requisitioned the records of the courts below, and ordered that operation and execution of the impugned sentence shall remain suspended till further orders, subject to personal and surety bonds of ₹50,000/-, an undertaking to appear and serve sentence upon dismissal of the revision, and deposit of the fine amount within one month. The application stands disposed of; the revision awaits adjudication.

Pramod Kumar vs. State of HP

Cr. Revision No. 475 of 2025 Reserved on : 25.08.2025

02.09.2025 Present: M/s Digvijay Singh and Pragti, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/ State.

Cr. Revision No. 475 of 2025

Heard.

The learned Trial Court convicted the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’), on the allegations that he was posted as a Single Window Operator and transferred the pension of various persons to the accounts of the co-accused and his relatives.

Prima facie, the conviction of the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 403 and 409 of IPC is not sustainable, because in Section 403 IPC the property is innocently acquired and is wrongfully retained, whereas in Section 409 IPC the property is acquired with the consent of the owner but dishonestly misappropriated. Section 403 IPC does not require the entrustment, whereas, Section 409 IPC requires the same.

Hence, there are arguable points in the present revision which requires an adjudication.

Records of the Courts below be requisitioned.

Cr.MP No. 3676 of 2025

The present application has been filed for suspension of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. It appears from the perusal of the judgment and order dated 29.05.2024 & 11.06.2024 respectively of the learned Trial Court, in case titled “State of HP vs. Parmod Kumar & Anr.”, that the applicant was convicted and sentenced as under:-

(i) To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 403 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.

(ii) To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 409 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.

(iii) To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 467 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.

(iv) To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 468 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.

(v) To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 471 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.

All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Keeping in view the fact that the revision is not likely to be heard at the earliest as so many revisions are pending for disposal, therefore, it is ordered that the operation and execution of the impugned sentence passed by learned Trial Court and as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (HP) (learned Appellate Court), in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2024, dated 29.07.2025, shall remain suspended till further orders, subject to furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court with an undertaking to appear and serve sentence, in case of dismissal of the present revision and subject to deposit of fine amount, if not deposited earlier, within a period of one month from today.

A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial

Court for information.

The present application stands disposed of.

Learned Trial Court is directed to transmit the

bail bonds, so furnished by the applicant before it, for placing the same on record.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

02^nd September, 2025 (Anurag)