Dharam Pal vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

PetitionerDharam Pal has approached this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail in a case registered as First Information Report No. 11 of 2.1.1996 under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station Safidon. He had approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, with a similar request and the same was rejected by order Annexure P2 dated 7.8.1996.

The First Information Report in question was registered on the basis of a complaint from the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Safidon, to the Superintendent of Police, Jind. The petitioner was working as Secretary of Malikpur Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Malikpur. He is alleged to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 79,799.40 upto 19.1.1995. By registered notice dated 10.5.1995 the petitioner was called upon the deposit the said sum for which on 30.5.1995 petitioner Dharam Pal had presented a written statement in person. The cash book showed a sum of Rs. 79,799.40 as due from Dharam Pal, which has been signed by petitioner Dharam Pal. After perusal of the record and after recording statements of the members and also on the perusal of the pass book, it was concluded that the petitioner has embezzled this amount. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 6,319.85 on 16.3.1995 leaving a balance of Rs. 73,475.55. On these allegations the Superintendent of Police of Jind, was requested to register the First Information Report and investigate the matter. Dharam Pal was also placed under suspension.

The petitioner claims that the entire matter was sent for investigation to Shri Birbal Singh, Manager, the Jind Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jind, who has submitted his report dated 22.6.1995 (Annexure P1) after perusing the records and recording statements of numerous members as also those of petitionerDharam Pal and SalesmanSultan Singh and other senior officers.

The petitioner contends that the enquiry report annexure P1 reveals that it is the salesmanSultan Singh who had embezzled the money and not the petitioner, that Shri Parivar Malik the E.O. of Safidon Branch, who had initiated the present complaint has been indicted by the Enquiry Officer as having tried to shield Sultan Singh, that Sultan Singh has neither been placed under suspension nor any First Information Report has been lodged against him in spite of the enquiry report annexure P1, that no action has been taken against Mr. Parivar Malik E.O. as also against Balbir Singh, the then Development Officer, and that the enquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty of only dereliction of duty inasmuch as he had signed blank receipts at the asking of the Senior Officers and had handed over the same to SalesmanSultan Singh. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no case is made out against the petitioner under Section 406 or 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

The State has filed a reply objecting to the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that there is sufficient and cogent evidence against the petitioner.

Therefore, we will have to find out whether the petitioner is entitled to the bail as prayed for. We have heard the counsel for both the sides.

Annexure P1, the copy of the enquiry report submitted by Birbal Singh, Manager of Jind Central Cooperative Bank, shows that during the investigation the petitioner had stated to him that he had subscribed his signatures to the blank receipts at the asking of Balbir Singh the then Development Officer, Safidon and that Mr. Sultan Singh the Salesman had received the amounts from the members and had misutilised them. The report also shows that Lakhwinder Singh a member of the society has stated that he had borrowed Rs. 13,680/ in total and had repaid a sum of Rs. 14,300/ on 30.11.1994 to the Secretary and at that time the Secretary (that is the petitioner) had told him that a sum of Rs. 3652/ was outstanding from him. Lakhwinder Singh has also stated that he had not taken any other loan except the aforesaid amount and the other loan has been taken and misutilised by salesmanSultan Singh by forging signatures. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer has found that SalesmanSultan Singh has embezzled this amount after having recovered the same from the member.

Similarly Gurcharan Singh had filed an affidavit before the enquiry officer stating that the SalesmanSultan Singh had taken fertilizer loan in the name of Member. Amar Singh, another member, had stated that he had repaid Rs. 12,000/ to Sultan Singh, but, no receipt was issued, and when he informed the Salesman to hand over the matter to the Police, the salesman gave him the receipts signed by the Secretary. These receipts were found to have been signed by the petitioner. Sultan Singh had admitted the recovery of Rs. 12,000/ but stated that the same was not deposited into the account of the society but was returned to the member, which was denied by the member. Therefore, the enquiry officer found that salesman SultanSingh had effected recovery and later on issued receipt.

Fauja Singh had stated to the Enquiry Officer that the SalesmanSultan Singh had been taking fertilizer in his name for the last many years. Gian Singh had stated that he deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/ on 19.5.1993 being the amount due from his father Santa Singh but, SalesmanSultan Singh had not issued any receipt at that time but later on receipt dated 12.12.1994 was issued, signed by the Secretary. SalesmanSultan Singh had admitted that this amount was recovered but only claimed that it was recovered five months back and was handed over to the Secretary. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer found that Sultan Singh has misused the amount recovered from the member. Major Singh had stated that he had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/ from the bank, that salesmanSultan Singh had kept this money for depositing into the bank but instead deposited the money in his own personal account and later on issued a receipt dated 29.11.1994 signed by the Secretary.

The Enquiry Officer had, therefore, found that salesmanSultan Singh has been making forged dealings of Fertilizer loan in the name of Society members but has been using the same himself. He has also found that Ram Kishan Chowkidar of the Society had confirmed that petitioner had signed the blank receipts on the directions of the Development Officer. Although the Enquiry Officer has found that the forgeries were made by Sultan Singh he has also observed that the petitioner Dharam Pal who is the Secretary cannot also be stated to be "not guilty". The enquiry officer has found that salesmanSultan Singh was causing obstructions to the investigation and that the Executive Officer has not even placed him under suspension.

Ultimately the Enquiry Officer has opined that the embezzlement committed by SalesmanSultan Singh was also in the knowledge of the Secretary but he did not bring the same to the notice of the higher authorities. Therefore, he had requested that the matter has to be investigated deeply and can be referred to the police against Secretary and Salesman so that the truth can be known.

Relying upon these observations of the Enquiry Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences under Section 406 or 409 of the Indian Penal Code and at the most the petitioner can be stated to have been guilty of dereliction of his duty in having signed the receipts in blank and handed over the same to their salesmanSultan Singh. But from the report of the Enquiry Officer, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is not involved in the commission of these offences. As pointed out already even the report (Annexure P1) ultimately recommends that the matter may be reported to the police against the petitioner and the salesman. Even according to the petitioner he signed the blank receipts and handed over the same to the salesmanSultan Singh. The report annexure P1 indicates the petitioner was in the know of the embazzlement committed by salesman. In such circumstances, if the petitioner had known about the embazzlement and had signed receipts in blank and handed over them to salesmanSultan Singh, and when a huge amount has been embezzled or misappropriated either temporarily or permanently, and when the petitioner had not brought it to the notice of the superior, it is too early to say that the petitioner is not involved in these offences. In the reply by the State, it has been stated that the case was fixed on 14.11.1996 for framing of the charge. Therefore, at this stage, it will not be proper to grant bail to the petitioner, as it cannot, at this stage, be stated with certainty that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences. Therefore, I feel that the petition should be dismissed at this stage.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.