Criminal Revision No. 2438 of 2003 · High Court of Punjab And Haryana · 2010

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, with Mr. Vineet Soni, Advocate for the petitioner (In Criminal Revision No. 2438 of 2003) None for petitioner (In Criminal Revision No. 2269 of 2003) Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, Criminal Revision No. 2438 of 2003 preferred by Ravinder Kumar Saxena and Criminal Revision No. 2269 of 2003 preferred by Raveen Kumar, shall be decided together. Criminal Revision No. 2438 of 2003 2 Petitioners Raveen Kumar alias Parveen Kumar and Ravinder Kumar Saxena along with the acquitted co-accused Prem Kumar Chauhan were named as accused in case FIR No. 685 dated 9.12.1985 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, under Sections 406, 409 and 120-B IPC. In the present case, criminal proceedings were sent into motion on a written complaint instituted by the Executive Engineer (Store), Punjab State Electricity Board. The complainant stated that inquiry was held and it was found that Ravinder Kumar Saxena, Junior Engineer, drew material worth Rs.1,40,320/- and the same was misappropriated. Raveen Kumar alias Parveen Kumar, Junior Engineer, drew material valued more than Rs.1,10,721/- and this was also misappropriated. Some relevant documents were also missing from the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Central Stores, Patiala. The petitioners were charged by the trial Court for offence under Sections 406, 409 and 120-B IPC. Prosecution examined Sadhu Singh Dhindsa, Director Transmeter (Design) as PW.1 who stated that he conducted an inquiry and it surfaced that the accused were entrusted with ACSR conductor along with wooden reels, details of which were given in written complaint Ex.PE. PW.2 Dalip Singh testified that on 20.9.1985 he was deputed on Truck No. PUC-2489 and accused Ravinder Kumar Saxena asked him to load some conductors in his truck. This witness further stated that after the conductors were loaded, they were got unloaded by the accused near Alipur bye-pass. It was further stated that on 24.10.1985, Criminal Revision No. 2438 of 2003 3 accused Raveen Kumar was posted at Sub Division, Rajpura, and on his instructions conductors were loaded in the truck and they were got unloaded by the accused Raveen Kumar on the road side of Rajpura Town. PW.3 Sher Singh stated that on 10.11.1985, on the asking of Ravinder Kumar Saxena, accused, they had loaded four wooden reels containing the conductors wires. After the truck had gone at a distance of 5 Kms., the goods were got unloaded at Sirhind Road, Patiala. The trial Court further noticed evidence of PW.4 Harnek Singh, PW.5 Didar Singh,PW.6 Tarsem Lal, PW.7 Gurcharan Singh, PW.8 Ajmer Singh, and PW.9 Balbir Singh. Prosecution has sufficiently proved following two facts:- a) That requisition slips were issued by the petitioners, on basis of which goods were taken from the store. b) Conductors/wooden reels were got loaded in the trucks belonging to Punjab State Electricity Board. Later they were got unloaded by the accused on the way side and thereafter they have not been accounted for. Thus, the trial Court rightly concluded that the goods have been misappropriated by the accused. Both the accused were found guilty of offence under Sections 409 and 120-B IPC. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and pay fine of Rs.500/- each for offence under Section 409 IPC. In default of Criminal Revision No. 2438 of 2003 4 payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Similar sentence was awarded upon both the accused for offence under Section 120-B IPC. Their co-accused Prem Kumar Chauhan was also sentenced similarly. Aggrieved against the same, all the three accused had filed an appeal. The appeal of Prem Kumar Chauhan was accepted, however, appeal of the petitioners was dismissed. The lower Appellate Court rejected the argument that at the relevant time, the accused were not posted at the places where the petitioners could misappropriate the goods. The trial Court held that Raveen Kumar though was posted as Lineman, but was entrusted with the duties of Junior Engineer. The Court further held that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not required as it was not the duty of the employees to embezzle that property and as such act of embezzlement of the properties in question has no nexus with the duties to be performed by the petitioners. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vineet Soni, Advocate, appearing for petitioner Ravinder Kumar Saxena, has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove entrustment of the goods to the petitioners. However, Mr. Bhan cannot assail the requisition slips proved by the prosecution. Once in pursuance of requisition slips, goods were issued to the petitioners and as per the oral testimony of witnesses, they were loaded at the instance of petitioners and they got the same unloaded, it is incumbent for the accused to account for the goods taken out of the store. Hence, the argument raised is rejected. Criminal Revision No. 2438 of 2003 5 At this stage, counsel for petitioner Ravinder Kumar Saxena has stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1985. Petitioners are in the corridors of the Courts from the last 25 years. It is further submitted that petitioner Ravinder Kumar Saxena has undergone about one month and two days of his actual sentence. It is submitted that at the time of occurrence, Ravinder Kumar Saxena was aged 46 years at the time of occurrence and now he is aged about 71 years. Therefore, the petitioners be not sent behind the bars as no useful purpose will be served. Nobody has caused appearance for petitioner Raveen Kumar alias Parveen Kumar. He was granted bail by this Court on 1.12.2003. He has also undergone about 27 days of his actual sentence. Raveen Kumar alias Parveen Kumar was aged 43 years at the time of occurrence. He is now aged about 68 years. Taking into consideration age, and the fact that the accused/petitioners have suffered protracted trial of about 25 years, this Court is of the view that the sentence awarded can be reduced to already undergone provided amount of embezzlement is deposited by the accused. Overall view is formulated regarding the amount to be paid by the accused. On deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- by petitioner Ravinder Kumar Saxena, his sentence shall be reduced to already undergone and the amount be disbursed to the Punjab State Electricity Board. Similarly, on deposit of amount of Rs.1,25,000/- by petitioner Raveen Kumar alias Parveen Kumar, his sentence shall also be reduced to already undergone and the amount be also disbursed to the Punjab State Criminal Revision No. 2438 of 2003 6 Electricity Board. In case, the amounts are not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioners. The amount will be deposited by both the petitioners in the trial Court, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. With the observations made above, both the revision petitions are disposed of. February 11, 2010 “DK” (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge