Govind Singh vs State of H.P.

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—Both these revisions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same judgment of the learned Court below.

Govind Singh, Padam Singh and Tilak Raj were charged for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that one Lal Bahadur who had been living at village Ghatoo, Tehsil Nirmand had deposited a sum of Rs. 7,000/- on 19.4.1990 in term deposit for two years and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in a fixed deposit on 22.9.1991 in the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank at Nirmand. He died in March, 1992.

The prosecution case is that on his death, Tilak Raj accused-Petitioner, who was the Bank Manager, in connivance with Govind Singh, conspired and misappropriated the amount of Rs. 25,799/- which belonged to the deceased. It was alleged that the words "son of" were obliterated in the deposit receipts and instead the word "and" was inserted. The deposits were in the name of Lal Bahadur son of Govind Ram and by inserting the word "and", the entire character of the deposit was changed enabling and facilitating the accused Govind Ram to withdraw the money in conspiracy with the Bank Manager Tilak Raj. The prosecution story is that one Jara Singh, who was the staff peon, was also involved in this withdrawal. He has not been arrayed as an accused. On appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary produced before it, the learned trial Court found Tilak Raj and Govind Singh (sic Govind Ram) guilty of the offences and Padam Singh the third accused was acquitted. Two appeals were preferred separately by accused Tilak Raj and Govind Singh which were dismissed by learned Sessions Judge.

The learned trial Court sentenced both the accused Govind Ram and Tilak Raj to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for six months for offences u/s 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for six months for offences u/s 468 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in case of default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offences punishable u/s 468 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

On the facts as determined by the trial Court and as affirmed by the learned appellate Court, I do not find that this is a case in which even if the evidence is assessed afresh, exonerates the accused. The Courts below, on the evidence of PW-4 Jai Pal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW-5 ASI Dhan Sukh, PW-6 ASI Kashmir Singh and PW-8 Shri H.M. Sexena, Deputy Government Examiner of questioned documents, found that the writings on the deposit receipts had been tampered with in the handwriting of the accused. The prosecution also successfully established that the accused had acted in concert in taking away the money.

I do not find any error or perversity in the judgment of the Courts below, calling for interference by this Court.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in both these appeals have argued on the quantum of sentence. The report of the Probation Officer in terms of Section 4(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'') was called for. I have carefully studied the report sent by the Probation Officer.

In the case of Govind Singh, the Probation Officer, Kullu had sent his report under Rule 16(1) of the Probation of Offender Rules, stating therein that he is a sociable and cooperative person, he has one wife aged 45 yeas and is an Anganwari worker (daily paid worker), one ten years old daughter who is studying in Class-4. He was earlier appointed as EDDA at Branch Post Office, Ghatoo. The Officer also reports that he repents his actions/deeds. What is important to note is that the Probation Officer assesses that he will improve in case he is granted benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.

In the case of Shri Tilak Raj, it is reported that he is cooperative, sensitive towards the social obligations and has good reputation amongst his neighbour. He has two sons and two daughters out of whom three are studied and one daughter is working as a Medical Representative. His services as a Manager, Grade-II, had been terminated by the Bank after the institution of the case and presently he is working as an agriculturist. Though another case is pending against him, but it is still under trial and his innocence has yet to be determined by the Court. The Probation Officer recommends his release on probation.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice in case both the Petitioners are released on probation. It is, therefore, directed that instead directing them to undergo the sentence already imposed on them, they be released on their entering into personal bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount undertaking to serve the sentence if so directed. The bonds should be valid for one year. They will undertake to keep peace and be of good behaviour. I also deem it proper that both the Petitioners shall remain under the supervision of the District Welfare Officer-cum-Probation Officer, Kullu, District Kullu for a period of one year. The Probation Officer shall report any involvement of these persons in any offences which would necessitate the recalling of this order. The bonds shall be executed to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu within a period of three months from today. The Probation Officer is further directed to report to this Court in case any of the conditions of the bonds are violated by the Petitioners. Both these revisions are disposed of accordingly.