AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ujagar Singh, J.
One Balwinder Singh Lineman was deputed by the S.D.O. on 28101982 to effect recoveries from the consumers and he collected a sum of Rs. 9196.50 from 96 consumers. This amount was handed over by him to the petitioner on the same day against a receipt. This amount was not deposited by the petitioner in the office and ultimately on 15101983 when the auditparty was checking the account it was found that this amount had not been deposited till then in the Consumer''s Revenue Cash Book or in the Main Cash Book and the amount was kept by him. On 8111983 he deposited this amount. vide Ex. PD and on departmental action against him he was suspended on 14.11.1983. After the petitioner was suspended he left the office without giving the charge and took away the key of the chest and had absconded. After receipt of the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. the petitioner was charged under section 409 IPC by the trial Court. The trial Court then recorded the evidence and ultimately it came to a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty under section 408 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
The petitioner went in appeal and the Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments and going through the facts of the case dismissed the appeal without any interference in the trial Court''s judgment, on 2271988.
The petitioner has come up in this revision challenging his conviction and sentence. This case came up for hearing on 581988 and the counsel for the petitioner only argued for reduction of sentence without challenging the conviction on merits and vide order of that date notice to. A.G. Punjab was issued but prayer for bail was refused.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has suffered heavily on account of nondeposit of the amount for a period of about one year which he says was actually a mistake on the part of the petitioner. He further argued that the petitioner was suspended and ultimately dismissed and therefore, he has suffered his service for life. He has one son and two daughters who are entirely dependent on him. Now since 2271988 lie is in custody and the sentence already undergone will meet the ends of justice.
No doubt such people have to be dealt with severely but in this case dismissal from service and payment of the whole amount said to have been embezzled for about one year was made immediately the nondeposit of the same was found by the auditparty. In the circumstances of this case, I reduce the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment but I do not find any ground to modify the order of imposing fine on the petitioner.
With this modification, this revision petition is dismissed.
Revision dismissed