Partly allowed

Ram Dass v. Pb.State

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Aug 2009CRR/610/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a criminal revision, found the petitioner guilty of Section 408 IPC regarding embezzlement by a cooperative society secretary. Due to the petitioner's old age, poor health, and financial poverty, the court took a lenient view, directing him to deposit the amount already embezzled to avoid further imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner sentenced to period already undergone but directed to deposit Rs.55,000 within two months; if not deposited, revision dismissed and he is to serve remaining sentence.

Ram Dass Vs Pb.State — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Crl.Revision No.610 of 1992 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Crl.Revision No.610 of 1992 Date of decision:10.8.2009

Ram Dass

... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.

¶10

Present: Mr.A.S.Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Grewal, AAG, Punjab. ...

¶11

JORA SINGH, J.

¶12

Ram Dass preferred this revision to impugn the judgment dated 26.8.1992 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in case FIR No.136 dated 27.4.1982 under Sections 406/408 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala. Vide this judgment, appeal against the judgment/order dated 27.8.1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, was dismissed.

¶13

Vide the judgment dated 27.8.1988, the petitioner was convicted under Section 408 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month.

¶14

The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.12.1981, Madan Lal, Inspector of the Swajpur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society (for short `the Society') moved an application (Ex.PW3/C) to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala, to the effect that Ram Dass, while serving as Secretary of the Society, has shown in the rokar bahi dated 29.6.1981 that Rs.45,000/- was deposited in the State Bank of Patiala,

¶15

Crl.Revision No.610 of 1992 2

¶16

whereas in actual, amount of Rs.45,000/- was not deposited in the bank. Madan Lal also moved another application (Ex.PW3/D) to the effect that the petitioner, the then Secretary of the Society, as per entry in the rokar bahi has shown Rs.8231.10 ps. as cash in hand, but the said amount was also not deposited either in the Cooperative Societies Bank or in the State Bank of Patiala. In pursuance of applications (Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D), Shri Abdul Mazad Quaraishi gave applications (Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, for registration of a case against Ram Dass, the then Secretary of the Society. Ultimately, FIR (Ex.PW4/A) was registered against Ram Dass-petitioner. Record of the society was also summoned to the police station. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court and the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 408 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶17

The prosecution examined number of witnesses to establish the charges against the petitioner.

¶18

After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the petitioner was that his services were terminated vide order dated 22.6.1981. Entries in the cash book were maintained by Manohar Lal, Cashier, at the instance of Madan Lal.

¶19

After hearing APP for the State and defence counsel and going through the documents/evidence on file, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 408 IPC, as stated above.

¶20

Feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment dated 27.8.1988 passed

¶21

Crl.Revision No.610 of 1992 3

¶22

by the JMIC, Patiala, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed by the first Appellate Court vide the impugned order under challenge.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the occurrence is dated 14.12.1981 and services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 22.6.1981. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner is an old man and is not keeping a good health; he remained in custody for about 18 days, and the judgment of first Appellate Court is under challenge on the point of conviction only. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that keeping in view the old age and frail health condition of the petitioner, a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone.

¶24

Learned State counsel argued that no doubt the occurrence relates to the month of December, 1981, and the services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of June, 1981, but as per the evidence, about a sum of Rs.53,000/- was embezzled by the petitioner. Record of the Society was got recovered from the possession of the petitioner in pursuance of the search warrant got issued from the Court. He further argued that if the amount embezzled by the petitioner is deposited, then there would be no objection to take a lenient view.

¶25

I have gone through the evidence on file, perusal of which show that the petitioner was serving as a Secretary of the Society at the relevant time. Entries in the books of the Society were in the hand of the petitioner. Services of the petitioner were terminated on 22.6.1981 by the Madan Lal, Administrator (PW3). Admittedly, record of the society was in possession of the petitioner, which was taken from him in pursuance of search warrant

¶26

Crl.Revision No.610 of 1992 4

¶27

issued by the Court. The petitioner failed to convince as to why he had kept the record with him after his services were terminated by the competent authority. No documentary proof has been brought on record to show that a sum of Rs.45,000/- was deposited either in the State Bank of Patiala or in the bank of the Society. Statements of different PWs appearing on behalf of the State show that the payment was deposited with the petitioner, but that payment was not further deposited by the petitioner either in the State Bank of Patiala or in the bank of the society. Entries were not made in the pass book. No official with the record was summoned to state that the payment with the petitioner was deposited either in the State Bank of Patiala or in the bank of the society. The evidence showed that neither the payment was deposited in the State Bank of Patiala nor in the bank of the society. Once the payment in hand was not deposited by the petitioner anywhere, then he cannot argue that no offence punishable under Section 408 IPC was committed. A perusal of the file further shows that an award regarding embezzlement was passed against the petitioner. But despite the award passed by the Arbitrator, the payment was not deposited either in the State Bank of Patiala or in the bank of the society.

¶28

Occurrence is of December, 1981, whereas the services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of June, 1981. Further, the petitioner is very old and is not keeping good health. Financially, the petitioner is also very poor and he remained in custody for about 18 days. The petitioner is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. The petitioner is to become a hard criminal if again sent to jail to serve the sentence awarded by the trial Court.

¶29

In the light of above discussion, a lenient view is taken and the

¶30

Crl.Revision No.610 of 1992 5

¶31

petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone. The petitioner is further directed to deposit an amount of Rs.55,000/- with the trial Court within a period of two months from today, which shall be disbursed to Swajpur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society. In case payment of Rs.55,000/- is not deposited within two months, then the revision would stand dismissed automatically and the petitioner shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence awarded by the trial Court.

¶32

With this modification on the part of sentence, the revision being

¶33

without merits is dismissed.

¶34

10.8.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE

Ram Dass v. Pb.State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dass v. Pb.State

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

Shalini and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Suresh Pal etc. Vs State of Haryana

Kulbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

R.K. Mishra Vs Kharati Ram

Hakam Rai Vs State of Haryana

Makhan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.