Gopal Chander vs U.T.

Sabina, J.—Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 467, 468, 467 read with Section 471, 420 and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), vide judgment dated 24.5.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chandigarh. Vide order dated 25.5.2002, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 200/- u/s 467 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 200/- u/s 468 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 200/- u/s 467 read with Section 471 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 200/- u/s 420 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 420 read with Section 511 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 1.3.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Hence, the present revision petition.

Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:

Briefly stated the allegations of the prosecution are that appellant-accused Gopal Chander was working as Clerk/cashier on deputation in the department of Environment, Chandigarh Administration. On 1.7.1994 cheque bearing No. 015688 signed by complainant Shri PJS Dadwal (PW-1) for Rs. 2400/- was issued in favour of the accused to draw the above amount from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh for disbursement of salary to the staff. At about 2.05 pm the accused informed the complainant by writing letter (Ex.P23) that the cheque had been misplaced. Accordingly, the complainant had written letter (Ex.PA) to the Bank for stopping payment. The complainant then received a telephonic message from the Manager of the Bank that accused had presented that cheque for drawing an amount of Rs. 20,400/- and not for Rs. 2400/- as mentioned in Ex.PA. Accused was asked to get the cutting in the cheque attested from the complainant but the accused did not turn up nor had he returned the alleged cheque to the Bank. The complainant then obtained a copy of statement of accounts (Ex.PB) from the bank. From there it was revealed that accused had played fraud earlier also on 2.5.1994 when the cheque No. 015673 signed by the complainant for drawing an amount of Rs. 2400/- endorsed in favour of the accused was issued and the accused converted the amount into Rs. 20040/- after making alteration in the cheque and misappropriated the alleged amount of Rs. 18,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant lodged a complaint (Ex.P-12) in the police station.

On receipt of the above complaint in the police station this case was registered and investigations were taken in hand. During investigations it was further revealed that accused had tempered with another similar cheque bearing number EK 454721 dated 1.12.1993 and converted the original amount already mentioned therein as Rs. 4200/- into Rs. 14200/- and misappropriated the alleged amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Relevant record from the bank including the alleged cheques and the notings from the office besides the relevant entries made in the cash book were collected. The cheques were sent to the office of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Govt. of India, Shimla for examination. From there cheques were found to have been tempered with regarding figures of the amount. Statements of the prosecution witnesses u/s 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The accused was arrested and on completion of investigations challan was presented in the Court for trial.

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 467, 468, 467 read with Section 471, 420 and 420 read with Section 511 IPC but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by him. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the appellant had been found innocent during the departmental enquiry qua the same charges. The appellant is the only bread earner of the family.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is liable to be reduced to as already undergone by him

Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Sections 467, 468, 467 read with Section 471, 420 and 420 read with Section 511 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Fine, if not already deposited by the petitioner, shall be deposited by him within two months from today failing which this petition shall stand dismissed.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.