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

Suspension of the operation and execution of the impugned sentence (Trial Court sentence affirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2024) till further orders, subject to personal and surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/-, an undertaking to appear and serve the sentence if the revision is dismissed, and deposit of the fine amount within one month; the revision itself remains pending with records requisitioned.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the accused under Sections 403 and 409 IPC is sustainable, given the distinction drawn by the Court that in Section 403 IPC the property is innocently acquired and wrongfully retained (no entrustment required), whereas Section 409 IPC requires entrustment and involves property acquired with the owner's consent but dishonestly misappropriated. +1 more

Court's answer

Because the revision is not likely to be heard at the earliest (many revisions are pending), 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) in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2024 dated 29.07.2025 shall remain suspended till further orders, subject to furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, an undertaking to appear and serve the sentence in case of dismissal of the revision, and deposit of the fine amount (if not deposited earlier) within one month.

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that there are arguable points in the present revision which require adjudication.

Key takeaways

Prima facie, the conviction under Sections 403 and 409 IPC is not sustainable: in Section 403 IPC the property is innocently acquired and wrongfully retained (entrustment not required), whereas Section 409 IPC requires entrustment and involves property acquired with the owner's consent but dishonestly misappropriated. This is a prima facie observation; the point is expressly left open for adjudication in the revision.obiter¶8
Records of the Courts below were directed to be requisitioned.ratio¶10
The present application (Cr.MP No. 3678 of 2025) for suspension of sentence stands disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order in Cr. Revision No. 476 of 2025 (reserved 25.08.2025; decided 02.09.2025) by Judge Rakesh Kainthla (identifying court not stated in the text). Pramod Kumar, convicted by the learned Trial Court (judgment and order dated 29.05.2024 and 11.06.2024, case titled 'State of HP vs. Parmod Kumar & Anr.') 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 concurrent substantive sentences of two/three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 under each head (30 days further simple imprisonment on default), had the sentence affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (HP) in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2024 dated 29.07.2025. Observing that, prima facie, conviction under Sections 403 and 409 IPC is unsustainable (S.403 IPC concerns property innocently acquired and wrongfully retained and does not require entrustment, whereas S.409 IPC requires entrustment and involves property acquired with the owner's consent but dishonestly misappropriated), the Court found arguable points requiring adjudication and directed that the records of the Courts below be requisitioned. In Cr.MP No. 3678 of 2025, the operation and execution of the impugned sentence was suspended till further orders, subject to personal and surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/-, an undertaking to appear and serve the sentence upon dismissal of the revision, and deposit of the fine within one month; the application was disposed of.

Pramod Kumar vs. State of HP

Cr. Revision No. 476 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. 476 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. 3678 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. 15 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)