Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana

Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated

1.3.2001, with the modification to the extent that the sentence of rigorous CRR No.519 of 2001 2 imprisonment was ordered to be reduced from three years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment under each offence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 to 10 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Appellant Ram Kumar was working as Secretary of the Baopur Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd. Baupur (hereinafter called Baupur Society) Tehsil Guhla. A case for embezzlement of Rs.83,050/- was got registered against him by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Guhla per his letter No.1757/HC Guh. Dated 9.5.1995 Ex.PW-22/A to the address of the Superintendent of Police.

3.According to the allegations Inspector Co-operative Societies (IADP) Guhla per his letters dated 19.7.1984 and 10.1.1985 reported to the office of the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Guhla that Ram Kumar appellant-accused, Ex-Secretary of the Baopur Society had embezzled an amount of Rs.83050/- from the funds of the society by showing bogus entry of payment. The appellant was served with registered notice vide letter dated

30.1.1985 which was acknowledged by him on 8.2.1985 but he did not care for this notice and did not deposit the amount. It was,thus, requested in the letter that a case against the appellant for the offence under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code be registered and the matter be investigated.

4. After the registration of the case, the investigation were taken in hand. The detail of the embezzlement were as under:- CRR No.519 of 2001 3 (1)Bogus payment 21.2.1984 cash book Amount page No.43 (day book page No.56 Voucher No.561) Rs.60,250/- (ii) Bogus payment 24.2.1984 Cash book page No.44(day book page No.56 Voucher No.565) Rs,16,800/ (iii)Bogus purchase of bricks 26.9.93 Rs.6000/- Case book page No. 13 (day book page No.12, voucher No.101 ------------------ Rs.83,050

5. It was alleged that appellant Ram Kumar had signed the cash book and day book of the society of these days. The amount of Rs.60,250/- and Rs.16,800/- were not deposited with the cooperative Bank in Bhagal branch and a bogus purchase of bricks for Rs.6000/- was shown.

6. Regarding embezzlement of Rs.60,250/- it was alleged that appellant Ram Kumar had collected the loan installments paid by several persons and kept the same with him for a sufficient long time and then deposited the amount in lump sum on

21.2.1984 and thereafter he withdraw the amount of Rs.60,250/- vide bogus voucher No. A 561 dated 21.2.1984 for its deposit with the Co-operative bank, branch Bhagal but the amount was not deposited with that branch and as such committed the embezzlement of Rs.60250/-. The details of the amount collected from various persons was as follows:- Sr.No. Name of person Amount

1. Mewa Singh son of Dalip Singh Rs.8000/-

2.Sucha Singh son of Sarwan Singh Rs.1800/- CRR No.519 of 2001 4

3. Khazan Singh son of Ran Singh Rs.4500/-

4. Surjan Singh son of Ujjagar Singh Rs.13,049/-

5. Ajmer Singh son of Bhan Singh Rs.4000/-

6.Panjab Singh son of Phyam Singh Rs.1000/-

7.Surjan Singh son of Bir Singh

8.Amar Nath son of Narota Singh

9.Ajit Singh son of Chanan Singh

10.Chatar Singh son of Bishna

11.Mangal son of Bishna

12.Surjit son of Bhira Rs.7795/- Rs.3715/- Rs.1201/- Rs.1910/- Rs.2970/- Rs.3600/-

13. Mohinder Singh son of Mihan Singh Rs.2400/- On 20.2.1984, the cash in hand was Rs.18,145.80 ps. On

21.2.1984 Rs.58,969/- were shown as recovery from the members. The total amount came to be Rs.77,114/80. The appellant had shown bogus withdrawal of Rs.60250/- thus leaving the cash in hand on 21.2.1984 as Rs.16,864/80 Rs.40/50 was shown as expenses. The net cash in the Cash book was shown as Rs.16,824/30 on 22.2.1984 which was duly signed by the appellant.

7.Regarding embezzlement of Rs.16,800/- it was alleged that out of the balance of Rs.16,824/30 as shown in the cash book, on

24.2.1984 te appellant withdrew Rs.16,800/- for deposit with the Co-operative Bank. Bhagal branch per Voucher No.561 dated

21.2.1984 but he did not deposit the amount with the said branch. As such he committed embezzlement of Rs.16800/-

8.Regarding embezzlement of Rs.6000/- it was alleged that the CRR No.519 of 2001 5 appellant had shown a bogus purchase of bricks from M/s Bal Kishan and Company, whereas neither any purchase was made nor any payment was made.

9.There were also allegations against the appellant that he collected Rs.250/- from Ajit Singh son of Chanan Singh being the installments of loan but did not account for the amount in the cash book. Similarly, he collected Rs.300/- from Ram Kishan alias Chhota son of Raja Ram, Rs. 220/- from Banta Singh son of Ram Singh and Rs.120/- from Nand Lal son of Dhanpat but did not account for the same in the cash book. In this way, it was alleged that the total embezzlement was of Rs.83,940/-. However, the first information report was lodged only with regard to the embezzlement of Rs.83,050/-.

10.During investigation, the police collected documentary evidence including cash book, ledger books and pass books and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of necessary investigations, the appellant was arrested and the case was sent up for his trial." After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, prosecution story is that the petitioner, who was working as a Secretary with the Society, had embezzled funds of the Society to the tune of Rs.83,050/-. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined witnesses and led documentary evidence. From the CRR No.519 of 2001 6 evidence led by the prosecution, it was duly established that the petitioner was responsible for maintaining the accounts of the Society and had embezzled the funds of the Society. The embezzled amount had neither been entered in the pass book of the members nor they received any receipts. The petitioner had also not purchased any bricks from PW19 Kulwant Singh who was running a brick kiln. But as per record, petitioner had withdrawn Rs.6000/- from the accounts of the Society for purchase of bricks. Some bogus entries had been made by the petitioner in the record by preparing vouchers. The loan amount returned by members had also not been entered in the cash book. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have thus rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 408,468 IPC. The impugned judgments call for no interference Dismissed. February 11, 2009 (Sabina) Judge