Pirthi Pal Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

Vide order dated 28.11.1997 Pirthi Pal Singh, accused petitioner was convicted by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mansa in case FIR No. 52 dated 23.6.1990 registered at Police Station Sadar, Mansa under Sections 408 of the Indian Penal Code. He was further convicted under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1500/ or in default to under go further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1500/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Substantive sentence were ordered to run concurrently.

In appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa vide order dated 30.5.1998 maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.

Having felt that he has been unjustifiably convicted and sentenced by the two courts below, Pirthi Pal Singh has come in revision to this Court.

At the motion stage, H.S. Bedi, J. ordered notice of motion to the State of Punjab only in re: sentence.

Prosecution case in brief is that Prithi Pal Singh was salesman in the Khiala Kalan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Khiala Kalan. In his capacity as salesman he misappropriated an amount totalling Rs. 60,160/. He had realised various amounts from the members of the society namely, Jora Singh, Sohan Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Chuhar Singh, Nand Singh, Surjan Singh etc. He did not deposit the amount realised from them in the account of Cooperative Society. He was also entrusted with the charge of the stock of fertilizers lying with the charge of the stock of fertilizers lying with the society during the period 4.9.1989 to 4.10.1989 as during this period one Ajaib Singh who was holding the charge of said stock as Secretary of the Society had proceeded on one month''s training course at Chandigarh and in his absence, the Khiala Kalan Cooperative Society Ltd., passed a resolution dated 1.9.1989 ordering Sh. Ajaib Singh Secretary of Society to hand over the charge of fertilizers stock to Pirthi Pal Singh. It was further provided in the resolution that Pirthi Pal Singh shall keep the charge of fertilizer stock with him till he remained on training at Chandigarh. After Ajaib Singh''s return from the training, he verified the stock and it came to his notice that Pirthi Pal Singh had misappropriated 15 bags of urea of the value of Rs. 1695/ and 83 bags of DAP (fertilizer) of the value of Rs. 14,940/. He, thus, misappropriated a sum of Rs. 16,635/ appertaining to the fertilizer stock. Total misappropriation committed by him according to the prosecution was of Rs. 60,160/. Case FIR No. 52 dated 23.6.1990 was got registered by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mansa vide letter No. 2587 addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police. After investigation, Prithi Pal Singh was challaned.

Accused was charged under Sections 408/468 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

On the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa found the charge under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as indicated above. In appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

In my opinion, the learned Courts below justifiably found the charge proved against the accused. Jora Singh PW1 stated that he paid Rs. 4035/ to the accused and got receipt Ex.PA. Accused made corresponding entry in his pass book Ex.PB/1. Sukhdev Singh son of Jit Singh PW2 stated that he gave Rs. 10,000/ to the accused and got receipt Ex.PC from him. Accused made corresponding entry in his pass book. Jora Singh DW2 stated that an amount of Rs. 60,160/ had been given by the accused to Ajaib Singh, Secretary of the Society alongwith 15 bags of urea and 83 bags of DAP vide receipt dated 13.2.1990 Ex.D1. This receipt was not genuine. Out of the amount of Rs. 4035/ deposited by PW1 with Prithi Pal Singh, he deposited Rs. 1460/ in the amount of the society. Similarly out of the amount of Rs. 9792/ deposited by Sukhdev Singh PW2 with Prithi Pal Singh, he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 7000/. Pass Book of Sukhdev Singh PW2 is Ex.PC and receipt for Rs. 9792/ issued by Prithi Pal Singh is attached in his pass book. Sohan Singh son of Arjan Singh PW.3 stated that he deposited Rs. 990/ in the account of the society which was received by Pirthi Pal Singh who gave him receipt Ex.P1, which is lying attached with his passBook Ex.P2. Chuhar Singh PW4 stated that he had deposited Rs. 635/ with Prithi Pal Singh but the receipt issued by Pirthi Pal Singh got misplaced by him. Kartar Singh PW5 stated that a sum of Rs. 1900/ was deposited by him with Prithi Pal Singh who gave him no receipt nor did he make any entry with regard to this amount in his pass book. From this evidence it was quite clear that the accused committed mis appropriation of certain amounts deposited with him by the members of the society. He did not deposit those amounts in the credit of the society. Receipt Ex.D1 was not believed by the learned Magistrate. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda also did not believe the receipt Ex.D1, meaning thereby that there is no proof that Prithi Pal Singh had handed over the amount of Rs. 60,160/ and the fertilizer to Ajaib Singh when he left for training. In my opinion, learned Courts below justifiably found the charge under Section 408/468 of the Indian Penal Code proved against the accused and convicted the accused thereunder.

Faced with this position, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner should be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as the society can be compensated by the amount said to have been misappropriated by him plus something more. In support of this submission he drew my attention to Ranjha Ram v. State of Punjab, 1986(1) RCR 106 where Ranjha Ram who was SecretarycumSalesman of the Cooperative Agricultural Society, had embezzled the amount of Rs. 15,000/ belonging to the Society by directing him to pay Rs. 15,000/ as compensation to the Society. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been suffering the vagaries of the criminal trial for the last more than 7 years. Ordeal of criminal trial has been hanging on his head like a damoclean sword. If the sentence passed upon the petitioner is maintained as it is, there will be no recompense to him for the mental agony he has undergone during all these years. Right of speedy trial is fundamental right of an accused, guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the Court is not able to assure him speedy trial, Court should atleast take into account the mental agony he has undergone during the prolonged trial. I quite agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sentence of imprisonment passed upon the petitioner is set aside. Fine if any paid shall be costs of the proceedings to the State. Petitioner is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ together with surety bond of the said amount for a period of two years. During this period of two years, he shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/ to the society by way of compensation for the amount misappropriated by him belonging to the society in the shape of cash amount and fertilizers. He shall pay this amount to the society in four equal instalments. First instalment shall be payable on or before 31.12.1998 and second instalment on or before 15.6.1999 and so on. In case the petitioner fails to pay any of the two consecutive instalments, till the stipulated date, he shall undergo the sentence passed upon him by the two Courts below. He shall execute the necessary bonds before the learned trial Magistrate forthwith, who shall order his release.

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

Revision dismissed.