Allowed

Duli Chand v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2009CRR/1392/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court reduced the petitioner's sentence from three years to one and a half years due to a protracted 26-year trial, while maintaining the fine, after finding no merit in challenging the conviction for criminal breach of trust.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from three years of rigorous imprisonment to one and a half years; fine maintained.

Duli Chand Vs State of Haryana — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Criminal Revision No. 1392 of 2001

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Criminal Revision No. 1392 of 2001

¶5

Date of Decision: 20.4.2009

Duli Chand

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

¶14

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present revision petition has been preferred by Duli Chand son of Hukma Ram, resident of village Godika, Post Office Bijuwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, who was posted as Secretary of the Asir Co-operative Credit and Services Society Limited. He has been tried in case FIR No. 196 dated 15.9.1985, registered at Police Station Kallanwali, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 471 & 201 IPC. The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, convicted and sentenced him under Section 408 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, petitioner was also ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months.

¶16

Criminal Revision No. 1392 of 2001

¶17

¶18

The trial Court found petitioner guilty of offence under Section 408 IPC and held that petitioner had willfully and intentionally committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the amount of Rs.15,44, 086.53 ps., which were entrusted to him by the innocent villagers as members of the Society of which petitioner was Secretary. The amount was entrusted to the petitioner by the villages towards repayment of their loan.

¶19

Aggrieved against the order of his conviction and sentence, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appeal was heard and decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 1.9.2001. The Appellate Court found no merit in the appeal and the same was consequently dismissed.

¶20

The petitioner had filed revision petition in this Court which was admitted on 31.10.2001 and he was ordered to be released on bail.

¶21

The case of prosecution is that the petitioner was posted as Secretary of the Asir Co-operative Credit and Services Society Limited, Asir, in the year 1980-83. The members of the society who had obtained a loan were making repayment of the loan and were entrusting the amount to the petitioner who instead of depositing the same in the account of the Asir Co-operative Credit and Services Society Limited, Asir, embezzled the amount. The embezzlement was detected in Audit Report pertaining to the year 1982-83. The details of these were given in an Audit Note to this effect. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Sirsa, wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, on basis of which FIR No. 196 dated 15.9.1985, mentioned above, was registered. The record of the Society was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Vide three separate seizure memos Ex.PW.11/A,

¶22

Criminal Revision No. 1392 of 2001

¶23

¶24

Ex.PW.11/B and Ex.PW.26/B, respectively. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Sirsa, in the written complaint, has stated that the petitioner was posted as Secretary of the Asir Co-operative Credit and Services Society Limited, Asir. The petitioner had not entered the amount received from 169 members in the records, and, thus, committed embezzlement of Rs.10,74,623.15 ps. He also embezzled Rs.3,76,190.40 ps. received from members by not reflecting the same in the record. Similarly, another amount of Rs.24,067/- in the same manner was misappropriated. The petitioner had sold fertilizer of the Society and failed to deposit Rs.50,995/-, other stock worth Rs.8,213/was also misappropriated. Cash-in-hand worth Rs.10,000/- was also embezzled.

¶25

This Court had called for the trial Court record on 2.3.2009.

¶26

Prosecution had examined 97 witnesses, out of 253 witnesses cited by prosecution. The trial Court took into consideration the fact that ten witnesses turned hostile but 87 witnesses supported the case of prosecution. The trial Court also noticed that 33 opportunities were given to the prosecution to examine all the witnesses but finally prosecution evidence was closed. A perusal of the list of witnesses reveal that all the villagers and members of the Society who had deposited the amount were cited as witnesses. It has come in the testimony of various villagers that they had paid the amount to the petitioner but he had not reflected the same in the account of the Society. The petitioner had made entries in the pass-books of the members of the Society having received the amount, but having made the entries in the pass-books of the loanees regarding receipt of the amount, a corresponding entry was not made in

¶27

Criminal Revision No. 1392 of 2001

¶28

¶29

the record of the Society as the amount was not deposited by the petitioner. All the witnesses have repeated and proved these allegations against the petitioner.

¶30

Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate, representing the petitioner has read the judgments of two Courts below. He has not been able to advance any meaningful arguments to controvert the findings recorded by the two Courts below. The entire record was examined by the Audit Committee and had submitted the report to this effect. Ex.PW.8/A is one pass-book of one Major Singh witnesses wherein entries have been made by the petitioner. Similarly, receipt Ex.PW6/A has been issued to Jagir Singh witness by the petitioner.

¶31

Mr. Ganeriwala failed to dislodge the veracity of these documents. It is to be noticed that counsel appearing for the petitioner in the trial Court had conceded that the petitioner is not a public servant and, therefore, Section 197 IPC is not attracted.

¶32

Having failed to assail and dislodge the findings of two Courts below, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR was registered in the year 1985. Most the amount has been embezzled in the year 1983. Thus, the petitioner has suffered protracted trial of 26 years. Counsel further submitted that petitioner has been in corridors of the Courts for the last 26 years and has suffered the pain and agony. Therefore, sentence awarded upon the petitioner be adequately reduced. Taking into consideration the amount embezzled and protracted trial suffered by the petitioner, I am of the view that ends of ; justice will be fully met in case sentence of petitioner is reduced from three years to one & a half year, however, sentence of fine is

¶33

Criminal Revision No. 1392 of 2001 5

¶34

maintained.

¶35

With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off.

¶36

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 20, 2009 “ DK ”

Duli Chand v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duli Chand v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvan Kumar Bhasin & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi Vs State of Punjab

Ram Pal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Daya Nand Swami Vs State of Hy.

Prem Chand Vs State of Punjab

Gursharan Kaur Vs State of Haryana