Sham Lal Vs State of Haryana

The present criminal revision pe��on is directed against the judgment dated 18.09.2009 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, whereby the pe��oner Sham Lal was convicted under Sec�on 409 IPC in FIR No. 37 dated 11.01.2001, registered at Police Sta�on City, Hansi. Vide a separate order dated 22.09.2009, the pe��oner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of ₹2000/-, in default of which he was to undergo fi�een days’ simple imprisonment.

¶13

The said above said convic�on and sentence were upheld by the learned Addi�onal Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide judgment dated 03.09.2014, dismissing the appeal preferred by the pe��oner.

¶14

Prosecu�on Case: The case originated from a complaint dated 11.01.2001 lodged by the then Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Hansi, to the SHO, Police Sta�on, Hansi, alleging that the pe��oner, working as Motor Vehicle License Clerk in the office of SDO, Hansi, had collected license fees amoun�ng to ₹40,950/- in the month of June, 1996 but failed to deposit the

¶15

Sarita Rani 2025.07.14 19:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶16

CRR No.2914 of 2014 (O&M)

¶17

2025:PHHC:084530

¶18

same in the Government Treasury. It was further alleged that upon random inspec�on, it was found that another ₹24,270/-, collected as vehicle registra�on charges, was also not deposited. An FIR was registered and inves�ga�on ensued. During the inves�ga�on, relevant records were taken into custody. Statements under Sec�on 161 CrPC were recorded, and a�er comple�on of the inves�ga�on, a challan was filed before the competent court.

¶19

Charges under Sec�on 409 IPC were framed. The pe��oner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecu�on examined eight witnesses, whereas the defence examined five witnesses, including the pe��oner himself as DW5.

¶20

Findings of the Courts Below: The trial court convicted the pe��oner, holding that the essen�al ingredients of criminal breach of trust by a public servant under Sec�on 409 IPC stood fully established. The first appellate court upheld the convic�on and sentence.

¶21

Conten�ons of the Pe��oner: Learned counsel for the pe��oner

¶22

argued:

¶23

That the pe��oner was falsely implicated due to office rivalry a�er he pointed out missing pages in the cash register.

¶24

That no evidence was led by the prosecu�on to show that Treasury records were checked for non-deposit.

¶25

That audit reports from the relevant years did not reflect any discrepancy.

¶26

That at the most, it is a case of delayed deposit and so, convic�on under Sec�on 409 IPC was not sustainable.

¶27

Response of the State: The learned State Counsel argued that

¶28

both courts had concurrently and rightly held the pe��oner guilty, based on cogent documentary and oral evidence.

¶29

Sarita Rani 2025.07.14 19:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

CRR No.2914 of 2014 (O&M)

¶32

2025:PHHC:084530

¶33

Evalua�on by this Court: This Court has considered the rival submissions and carefully appraised the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that the pe��oner was working as Motor Vehicle Licensing Clerk during the relevant period.

¶34

PW6, the then SDM, confirmed that the pe��oner was entrusted with the task of collec�ng license and registra�on fees and issuing receipts. He deposed that a sum of ₹65,220/- (₹40,950 + ₹24,270) was misappropriated. The receipts and register entries were duly exhibited. PW7, successor SDM, confirmed the audit findings and lodged the complaint Ex.PW7/A. Audit reports Ex.PW7/D supported the allega�ons.

¶35

The pe��oner, during his deposi�on as DW5, admi�ed that he deposited the amount only a�er audit objec�ons were raised. He also admi�ed that audit officials found embezzlement and that he later deposited the said amount in the Government Treasury.

¶36

As rightly held by the courts below, in order to a�ract Sec�on 409 IPC, the following must be proved:

¶37

Entrustment of property to the accused in his capacity as a public servant.

¶38

Dishonest misappropria�on or conversion of the said property.

¶39

The documentary evidence clearly establishes that the pe��oner collected the said amounts but failed to deposit them within a reasonable �me, and rather deposited the same only a�er an audit report and complaint were generated.

¶40

As such, the trial court correctly invoked Sec�on 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, placing the onus on the pe��oner to explain the delay in deposit, which he failed to discharge.

¶41

Sarita Rani 2025.07.14 19:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶42

Page 3 of 4

¶43

CRR No.2914 of 2014 (O&M)

¶44

2025:PHHC:084530

¶45

Conclusion on Convic�on: This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the two courts below. Therefore, convic�on under Sec�on 409 IPC is hereby affirmed.

¶46

Sentence Modifica�on: As per the custody cer�ficate on record, the pe��oner has already undergone 01 month and 15 days of actual imprisonment. He was about 58 years old in 2009, and is now approximately 74 years of age.

¶47

Taking into account the age of the pe��oner, the temporary nature of the misappropria�on, absence of previous criminal record, and the fact that almost half the sentence has already been undergone, this Court is of the view that ends of jus�ce would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

¶48

Order: Accordingly, the revision pe��on is partly allowed.

¶49

The convic�on of the pe��oner under Sec�on 409 IPC is maintained.

¶50

The sentence of three months' simple imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶51

The fine of ₹2000/- as imposed by the trial court shall remain intact.

¶52

The pe��oner is directed to deposit the fine amount, if not already deposited, within four weeks from today, failing which he shall be liable to undergo the remaining sentence as per the original order.

¶53

Disposed of accordingly.

¶54

July 14, 2025		(DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita		JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned?	Yes/No
Whether reportable?	Yes/No

¶55

Sarita Rani 2025.07.14 19:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶56

Page 4 of 4

Sham Lal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sham Lal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santokh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Adu Ram Vs Ram Singh

Jai Bhagwan Vs State of Haryana

Jagdish Vs Gram Panchayat and Another

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harish Sharma Vs Azad Singh and Another