Baljit Singh Dahiya vs State of Haryana

Ashutosh Mohunta, Actg. C.J.—Appellants Baljit Singh Dahiya and his wife Saravjit Kaur have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 27.02.2006 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhri vide which appellant No. 1 Baljit Singh Dahiya has been convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, whereas appellant No. 2 Saravjit Kaur was also convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. While passing the aforesaid judgment the appellants were acquitted of the charges under Sections 120-B, 467, 468 & 471 IPC.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that Om Parkash, D.S.P., State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak conducted an inquiry vide letter No. 2 dated 26.02.1996 and after inquiry he submitted the final report to the Director, State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, Chandigarh, which was forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Haryana Govt., Chandigarh with his comments for further necessary action. The Chief Secretary vide letter No. 39/5/96/3 dated 26.09.1997 ordered the registration of case on which FIR No. 16 dated 12.11.1997 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Ambala against 1. Baljit Singh Dahiya, 2. Manjit Singh Dahiya, 3. Saravjit Kaur, 4. Parsanni Devi, Ex. Chairman Social Welfare Advisory Board, Haryana, 5. A.K. Dua, 6. M.C. Sareen, 7. R.K. Jain, 8. R.K. Ranga, 9. Devender Nath, Welfare Officer, 10. Sham Lal Bahri etc. on the allegations that Baljit Singh Dahiya, Accountant, office of Haryana State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Chandigarh in collusion with officials of the said department prepared forged documents and mis-appropriated government funds. During enquiry, it was found that Loyal Shiksha Samiti 30 Harbanspura, near I.T.I., Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the Society) had received a grant of Rs. 69350/- and Rs. 5,000/- despite the fact that the said Samiti was opened on the basis of fabricated documents and the same was got falsely registered. It was also directed that no such Samiti was functioning at the address given in the documents. During investigation of the case Smt. Devki Kaushal had stated that she used to run the Society named Pratisil Mahila Mandal and the said Society was recognized and had received Rs. 20,000/- as grant from Haryana Social Welfare Advisory Board, Chandigarh. She has further stated that no letter was ever received in her house No. 30 Harbanspura Yamuna Nagar in the name of Loyal Samiti. During investigation it was further found that the postal authority had also reported that no Loyal Shiksha Samiti was found running at the aforestated address and thus the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was returned back but even then A.K. Dua, Secretary again delivered the said draft of Rs. 25,000/- personally knowing well that there was no Loyal Shiksha Samiti at the given address. The office record was prepared wrongly in the name of Om Parkash Vardhan and Smt. Parsanni Devi had issued orders for appropriate action. That the said draft was found to have been delivered at the aforesaid address. During investigation, it was found that there was neither Om Parkash resident nor Loyal Shiksha Samiti and no member of the said Samiti was traceable and said Samiti was found to be forged.

After investigation of the case, challan was submitted against Smt. Parshanni Devi, Ex. Chairperson Haryana Samaj Kalyan Shalhakar Board, Baljit Singh Dahiya, Ex. Accountant, Haryana Samaj Kalyan Salhakar Board, Smt. Saravjit Kaur and Davinder Nath, Welfare Officer, H.S.S.W.A.B., Chandigarh. All the accused faced trial under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Accused Saravjit Kaur and Baljit Singh Dahiya also faced trial under Section 420 IPC and accused Devender Nath and Smt. Parshanni Devi further faced trial under Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Subhash Chand, PW-2 Jasmer Singh, Postman, PW-3 Man Singh, another postman, PW-4 A.L. Gulati, PW-5 Smt. Devki Kaushal, PW-6 Constable Krishan, PW-7 Smt. Kamlesh, PW-8 Mam Chand Saini, Accountant, PW-9 Chander Shekhar, PW-10 Janta Ram, PW-11 S.L. Behmi, Deputy Manager, PW-12 Nrip Jeet Singh, PW-13 Rajesh Katyal, Chartered Accountant of M/s. R.K. Katyal & Co., Chartered Accountant, Rohtak, PW-14 Puran Singh Parmar, PW-15 Meenu Kumari, Clerk, PW-16 Jit Kaur, PW-17 Sawanran Ahuja, Assistant Haryana Samaj Kalyan Salhakar Board, Chandigarh PW-18 Smt. Romila Chopra, Deputy Director, Central Social Welfare Board, New Delhi, PW-19 Ram Chander, Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India, Chandigarh, PW-20 Ram Kumar, Field Investigator from the office of District Registrar, Firms & Societies, Kurukshetra, PW-21 Rajinder Singh the then DSP and PW-22 Mohinder Singh the then DSP State Vigilance Bureau, Investigating Officer.

The main witnesses PW-5 Smt. Devki Kaushal and PW-16 Jit Kaur did not support the prosecution case.

The trial court found that Loyal Shiksha Samiti was working on the address given by the Society from time to time and acquitted all the accused for the offences of forgery on the ground that the Society was already shown to be in existence by one Om Parkash before the Board and the alleged forged registration certificate and other documents were never used by the appellants. However, the trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 420 IPC on the basis of presumption only that they had knowledge that the Society was not a registered Society and had withdrawn the amount of grant of Rs. 55,000/- given by the department, as such they caused wrongful loss to the State and wrongful gain to them, after relying upon the statement of PW-20 Ram Kumar, Field Investigator to the effect that the Society was not registered at No. 769 and the registration was in the name of Prerna Society of Kurukshetra. The trial court acquitted the accused namely Smt. Parsanni Devi and Devender Nath, who were arrayed as an accused by the prosecution.

During the pendency of the present appeal appellant No. 1 Baljit Singh Dahiya i.e. husband of appellant No. 2 died as such qua him, the appeal has already been abated by this court vide order dated 29.10.2014.

The charges against accused Baljit Singh Dahiya and his wife Smt. Sarabjit Kaur are that they obtained a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- in the name of Society, which was not in existence, on the basis of false and forged documents but from Ex. PU/8 it is evident that the said society has been registered vide registration No. 789 dated 11.1.1993. The prosecution has failed to prove that the said certificate Ex. PU/8 is fake certificate and not issued by the Registrar, Firms & Societies, Haryana. Learned trial Court has wrongly relied upon the statement of PW-20 Ram Kumar that the Society was not registered at Sr. No. 789 but another society in the name of Prerna Society of Kurukshetra stood registered, in spite of the fact that the said witness, in his cross-examination admitted that he has not brought the register regarding registration of the Societies for the year 1992-93 which is available in the office of Sub Registrar, Firms & Societies, Haryana as one register is meant for Firms and other for Societies. The statement of PW-15 Meena Kumari, Clerk, Industrial Department, Haryana Chandigarh does not help the prosecution in proving the fact that the alleged certificate Ex. PU/8 is fake certificate because she neither brought the record nor admitted or denied the specific questions as such the Public Prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine the said witness.

The formation of the Society and its existence has also been proved from the statements of PW-16 Smt. Jit Kaur and PW-5 Smt. Devki Kaushal. There is no direct evidence on record to establish Saravjit Kaur''s active or conscious involvement in the embezzlement of funds because the prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove the fact that she along with her husband had knowledge that the Society was not a registered Society and she has not utilised the grant of Rs. 55,000/- for the purpose for which grant money was sanctioned, but the learned trial Court wrongly convicted the accused appellant on the basis of presumption and sentenced her to go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in spite of the fact that there is no cogent evidence against the appellant to connect her with the alleged commission of offence.

The evidence led by the prosecution also failed to prove the direct involvement of accused Saravjit Kaur in the alleged commission of crime. Sh. B.L. Behmi, Deputy Manager, SBI Yamuna Nagar, while appearing as PW-11 specifically stated that the two drafts of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- were deposited on 23.05.1995 and 20.03.1996 vide deposit slip Ex. PR/2 and Ex. PR/3 and the same are under the signatures of Baljit Singh Dahiya only. Moreover this witness also stated that the payment was withdrawn through three cheques by Baljit Singh Dahiya meaning thereby that the present appellant had neither deposited the alleged drafts in the account of the Society nor withdrawn the amount through cheques or had the knowledge about the fake society, as such she is not directly involved in the alleged commission of offence. Although, learned trial Court has observed that appellant Saravjit Kaur acted under the influence of her husband Baljit Singh Dahiya as such it can be presumed that she was not aware about the alleged fake Society. Moreover no evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that after withdrawal of the amount by her husband, the same was not spent for the purpose for which the grant was sanctioned. In the absence of cogent evidence, the finding recorded by learned trial court is against the facts proved on record, as such the conviction of Saravjit Kaur under Section 420 IPC is not sustainable.

Sh. Mam Chand Saini, Accountant, Haryana State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Sector 17 Chandigarh was examined as PW-8, who in his cross-examined admitted that Devender Nath visited the site and the Society was found to be well in order and the second installment was released only after his inspection report. He also admitted that office did not receive any complaint that Loyal Shiksha Samiti is not in existence. He also admitted that the Board was satisfied about the functioning of Sanstha and amount of grant was released. There is sufficient evidence on record to believe that the grant was released after physical verification carried out by the competent officer of the Board, namely, Devender Nath. There is neither any allegation nor any evidence against the accused Saravjit Kaur that she in connivance with her husband had not utilized the grant for which purpose the grant money was sanctioned. From the case of the prosecution and the evidence led on record, the ingredients of an offence under Section 420 IPC are not fulfilled. Accordingly, I acquit the accused-appellant Saravjit Kaur of the charges under Section 420 IPC.

The appeal stands allowed.