Mukesh Chander vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case in brief is that Mukesh Chander petitioner was cashier of Chhachhrauli Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Chhachhrauli during the period 1.7.1985 to 30.6.1987. In a Special audit conducted by the Senior Auditor, Cooperative Super Bazar Ambala Cantt, for this period on the accounts of the said bank, he was found to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 8,04,000/. In the audit report submitted, manager and the accountant of the said bank were also indicted by the Senior Auditor to the Manager of the Bank. The Manager of the bank sent complaint dated 24.6.1987 Ex. PW4/A along with Annexure Ex.PW 4/8 to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhari stating that an amount of Rs. 5,78,000/ belonging to the bank had been embezzled by the accused. Details of the embezzlement were incorporated in complaint Ex.PW4/B. He collected more amount from the depositors by way of the recovery of loans but deposited less amount with the Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. He thus misappropriated the amount. Case was registered at PS Chhachhrauli under Section 409 IPC. After investigation, accused Mukesh Chander was challaned.

Mukesh Chander was charged under Section 409 IPC by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhari vide order dated 3.4.1989. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. On the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhari found the accused to have received Rs. 13,25,000/ but deposited Rs. 6,81,000/ in the account of the bank and thus embezzled Rs. 6,44,000/ during the period 7.4.1986 to 6.4.1987. He was convicted under Section 408 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one year by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhari vide order dated 18/20.3.1997. Mukesh Chander went in appeal to the Court to Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari dismissed the appeal vide order dated 9.12.1998. Aggrieved from the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 9.12.1998, accused has come up in revision to this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that audit report indicted cashier, manager and accountant of the bank apart from Mukesh Chander. They were not challaned. Suffice it to say, Yash Verma, Senior Auditor PW9 stated that Mukesh Chander was working as cashier with the said bank and from time to time, he had been depositing money in the account of the Agricultural Development Bank. He stated that Mukesh Chander had embezzled a sum of Rs. 8,04,000/. He blamed the accountant and manager that despite the checks provided in the system, embezzlement remained undetected for quite a long time. This might suggest that the accountant and manager were negligent and therefore their negligence facilitated the commission of embezzlement of the money of the bank by Mukesh Chander. Mukesh Chander was essentially a clerk but was working as cashier. In this capacity as cashier amounts were entrusted to him and he did not deposit faithfully the amounts entrusted to him in the account of the bank. Surender Singh PW1 is the manager of the Amabala Central Cooperative Bank. He stated that Mukesh Chander accused was working as Cashier of the Agricultural Development Bank, Chhachhrauli and had been coming to the said bank for depositing the cash of the Chhachhrauli Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank, Chhachhurali. Mukesh Chander''s successor Hari Ram PW2 stated that the accused deposited Rs. 75,000/ in the Central Cooperative Bank from his pocket. Accused was to fill up the amount in pay in slip which was left with the Central Cooperative Bank, and would leave counterfoil blank. He would mention another amount of course higher than the amount deposited with the Central Cooperative Bank in the counterfoils of the pay in slips. He would then mention that higher amount in the cash book maintained by him as having been deposited with the Central Cooperative Bank. In this manner, the credit of the Agricultural Development Bank in its own account with the Central Cooperative Bank was more that it was in the account books of the Central Cooperative Bank. Documents, namely the pay in slip and the counterfoils along with the cash book are a pointer to suggest the modus operandi being adopted by the accused in embezzling the amount belonging to the bank.

I have gone through the judgment of the learned Magistrate. Conclusion of fact arrived at by him is quite sustainable. I have gone through the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and his endorsing the conclusion of fact arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on correct appreciation of evidence. Petitioner was justifiably convicted by the learned Magistrate. His conviction was justifiably maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

Faced with this position, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a heart patient. He has been out of job for the last 12 years. He is the only bread winner of his family, Keeping in view that the petitioner has been facing the agony of this trial for the least about 1112 years, I think some consideration should be shown to him in the matter of sentence. He was put up on trial in the year 1988. He remained in trial before the learned Magistrate for 9 years whereafter he was convicted and sentenced. He remained in appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for about 2 years whereafter his appeal was dismissed. Looking to the fact that this trial has been hanging on the petitioner''s head like a damocles sword for the last 1112 years, the sentence imposed upon him is slashed and brought down to R.I. for 1 year. He shall, however, pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ as imposed upon him by the learned Magistrate. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further RI for 3 months.

Subject to this reduction in sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.