Gurmeet Chand v. State of Punjab

PW-5/A was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PW-5/B was registered. At about 6.15 p.m. one truck bearing registration No. PAT- 5792, was sighted being driven by a Sikh gentleman. Gurmeet Chand, was sitting by the side of the driver. Truck was being taken towards Morinda side. Investigating Officer, enquired about the papers regarding wheat bags loaded in the truck but accused failed to produce any document. After un-loading the wheat bags at the spot the same were found to be 105. Bags were again re-loaded in the same truck and after completing the formalities, the truck was brought to Zamindara Dharam Kanda. On weighment weight of the truck was 167 quintals and 25 kilograms. Accused along with the truck was brought to the police station. Gurmeet Chand, was the incharge of the godown of Food Corporation of India from where wheat bags were being loaded in the CRR No. 1087 of 2003 -3- truck. From the godown of Food Corporation of India wheat bags were loaded by Grumeet Chand. Driver of the truck wanted to get the gate pass issued but Gurmeet Chand told him that gate pass is with him, he should not worry about the gate pass and no need of his (driver) signatures on the said gate pass. On the direction of Gurmeet Chand, truck loaded with wheat bags was being taken towards Morinda side instead of Railway Station from where onward transportation of the wheat bags was done. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court. Accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 408 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Opportunity was given to lead defence evidence but no defence evidence was led. After hearing learned APP for the State, the learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on the file, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.5.2001. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset stated that CRR No. 1087 of 2003 -4- during the pendency of the instant revision petition, petitioner had died. Further argued that no evidence on the file that petitioner was the custodian of wheat bags loaded in the truck. Secondly, wheat bags were not recovered from the possession of the petitioner. In fact wheat bags were recovered from the possession of the driver but driver was not challaned for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Learned State counsel argued that petitioner was the custodian of the wheat bags. At the instance of petitioner wheat bags were loaded in the truck but without getting gate pass, truck was being taken towards Morinda side. On the way truck was signalled to stop by the police party while holding Nakabandi. Truck was brought to the weighbridge namely, Zamindara Dharam Kanda. Petitioner did not state a word that he was not the custodian of the wheat bags and at the time of recovery why he was in the truck. Only after the issuance of gate pass truck loaded with wheat bags can come outside from the premises of godown of Food Corporation of India at Shahidgarh. In case petitioner was not the custodian of the wheat bags and was not in the truck along with Baaj Singh driver at the time of recovery then petitioner should have sent complaints to different authorities. At the instance of the petitioner truck loaded with wheat bags without getting gate pass signed/thumb marked by the driver, was being taken towards Morinda side and this fact was rightly stated by Baaj Singh, when appeared as PW-3. First submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that petitioner was not the custodian of the wheat bags but after going through the evidence on the file, I am of the opinion that wheat CRR No. 1087 of 2003 -5- bags were loaded in the truck bearing registration No. PAT-5792, from the godown of Food Corporation of India, Shahidgarh, at the instance of the petitioner. On the day of recovery there was a special loading of wheat from the godown of Food Corporation of India, Shahidgarh. PW- 1 Surinder Singh, Assistant-Grade III stated that on the day of recovery Gurmeet Chand was the incharge of the godown and there was a special loading of weight bags of Food Corporation of India. PW-3 Baaj Singh, was the driver of the truck bearing registration No. PAT-5792 and on that truck wheat bags were loaded at the instance of petitioner from the godown of FCI, Shahidgarh. Baaj Singh, stated that after loading of wheat bags in the truck at the instance of the petitioner, he requested the gate keeper to issue gate pass but petitioner told that there is no need to get gate pass issued, he is in possession of the gate pass. Without getting gate pass issued, instead of going towards the Railway Station, he was directed by the petitioner to take the truck towards Morinda side. On the way, police party was holding Nakabandi then truck was intercepted. 105 wheat bags were recovered from the truck. After weighment they were brought to the police station. No suggestion was given to Baaj Singh, driver of the truck that wheat bags were not loaded at the instance of the petitioner. Secondly, at the time of recovery, petitioner was not present in the truck. No official of FCI stated that petitioner was not the incharge of the godown and from that godown truck was not loaded. PW-5 SI Atma Singh, stated that as per secret information police party was holding Nakabandi then sighted truck bearing registration No. PAT-5792 while going towards Morinda side. Truck CRR No. 1087 of 2003 -6- was signalled to stop and at that time Baaj Singh was the driver of the truck. Petitioner was sitting by the side of driver but there was no document with the petitioner. Petitioner alongwith the wheat bags was arrested in this case. PW-7 R.C. Verma, Assistant Manager of FCI, stated that on the day of recovery Gurmeet Chand-petitioner was serving as Assistant Grade-II, at the godown of FCI Shahidgarh. No question was put to him that Gurmeet Chand-petitioner was not the incharge of the godown from where wheat was loaded in truck bearing registration No. PAT-5792. PW-8 Labh Singh, Assistant Grade-I, stated that on the day of recovery there was a special loading of wheat bags from the godown of FCI, Shahidgarh. Gurmeet Chand was the incharge at that time. Wheat was in possession and control of the petitioner. PW-9 Sohan Lal, Assistant Grade-I stated that wheat was loaded in a truck from the godown of FCI, Shahidgarh. Gate pass was to be issued by Surinder Singh, Assistant Grade-III. Wheat loaded in truck was not unloaded at the Railway Station where he was on duty. From the evidence on file on thing is clear that on the day of recovery wheat bags were loaded in truck bearing registration No. PAT-5792. Baaj Singh, was the driver of the truck. Wheat was loaded in the truck at the instance of the petitioner who was the incharge of the godown but the wheat loaded in the truck was not unloaded at the Railway Station where Sohan Lal, was on duty. After loading wheat in the truck without getting gate pass from Surinder Singh, Assistant Grade-III, on the direction of the CRR No. 1087 of 2003 -7- petitioner, truck was being taken toward Morinda side. On the way truck was intercepted by the police party by holding Nakabandi. Wheat bags were recovered from the truck. At the time of recovery petitioner was in the truck driven by Baaj Singh. When petitioner was the incharge of the godown and on his direction wheat bags were loaded in the truck then why the truck was allowed to move from the godown without gate pass and wheat bags were not unloaded at the Railway Station. Petitioner when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then did not state a word that he was not the incharge of the godown and on his directioin wheat was not loaded and at the time of recovery he was not in the truck. In case petitioner was not the custodian of the wheat bags and there was no recovery from the truck in his presence then the petitioner should have sent complaints to different authorities. There was no idea to remain silent. Evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Revisional Court is not to re-assess or re- evaluate the evidence on file. When the evidence was misread or the impugned judgment is perverse only then the Revisional Court can interfere. For the reasons recorded above, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The instant revision petition without merits is dismissed. December 20, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE