Pritam Chand vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a criminal revision filed by Pritam Chand against the order of Additional Session Judge Kurukshetra dated 15.9.1987 affirming the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra dated 15/16.1.1985 convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The prosecution case in brief is that Pritam Chand was a Clerk in the office of Assistant Soil Conservation Office, Kurukshetra in the year 1977. He was holding charge of government money. He absented on 7.10.1977. He could not be traced. On 10.10.1977, telegram was sent to him on his home address that he should turn up on duty but to no effect. A registered letter was sent to him on 10.10.1977 by the office of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Kurukshetra which was received back undelivered. Since he was holding the charge of government money, it was apprehended that he had quietly decamped with government money and was avoiding resumption of duties for the same reason. Shri Pritam Chand sent two leave applications for the grant of leave which was refused. First leave application was received in the office on 20.10.1977 and second leave application was received in the office on 31.10.1977. In the leave applications, he did not indicate his address and as such he could not be contacted. While leaving the station he did not hand over the charge of government cash and also the keys of the safe which were with him. Shri R.N. Chaudhary, Assistant Soil Conservation Officer wrote letter Ex. PD to S.H.O. Police Station Sadar Thanesar on 4.11.1977. Case F.I.R. No. 58 dated 8.2.1978 was registered against Pritam Chand at Police Station, Sadar Thanesar. During investigation, it was found that there was cash in hand to the tune of Rs. 2,696.82 with the accused as balance cash. On 15.6.1978, the safe was broken so as to see if there was any cash to the tune of Rs. 2,696.82 in the safe. In the safe, a sum of Rs. 19.18 was found. Accused was thus found to have embezzled the remaining amount of Rs. 2,677.64. After investigation, accused was challaned under Section 409 I.P.C. Accused was charged under Section 409 I.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra vide order dated 4.2.1980. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

On the conclusion of the trial, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra found the charge proved against the accused and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above vide order dated 15/16.1.1985.

Having failed to secure acquittal in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, accused knocked the door of the Court of Session through revision where also he met the same fate.

After having suffered defeat in the two courts below, accused has not relented. He has knocked the door of this Court through this criminal revision.

Prem Chand PW1 stated that on 10.8.1976 he was working as tracer in agriculture department. Pritam Chand accused was posted as CashiercumClerk in their office during those days. He used to maintain cashbook. According to cashbook, a sum of Rs. 2,696.72 was balance in hand with the accused as per cashbook entry Ex. P1/1. Accused absented from duty from 7.10.1977. Letters/telegrams were sent to him for resuming duty but to no effect. He moved applications for obtaining leave and letters in this behalf are Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. The record mentioned in recovery memo Ex. PA was taken into possession. He stated that he identifies the signatures and writing of the accused. Record taken into possession is Ex. P4 to Ex. P9. On 22.9.1980, police took into possession documents Ex. P10 to Ex. P32 from their office vide memo Ex. PB. On 5.6.1979 police took into possession contingency register Ex. P.33. At page 15 of register Ex. P33 there is an entry of some vouchers which are Ex. P33/1 to Ex. P33/13. The amount which was due, according to the entry, towards the accused was not deposited by him and was outstanding against him and he embezzled that amount.

Shri R.N. Chaudhary PW2, who was Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Kurukshetra, stated that on 6.12.1977 the accused went to State Bank of India for obtaining some cash but he did not turn up. On 7.10.1977 the accused sent leave application through somebody and that leave application was sent to the concerned clerk. Thereafter the accused did not turn up nor they received any application. On 6.10.1977 accused made the opening entry and made some disbursements but the closing entry was not made. Chest was broken under the order of Director, Agriculture and in the chest only a sum of Rs. 19.18 was found. After checking the account of the accused in cashbook, an amount of Rs. 2,696.82 was found outstanding against him. There was thus deficiency of Rs. 2,677.54.

Hans Raj PW3 stated that he was Steno in the office of Assistant Conservation Officer, Kurukshetra at the relevant time. He handed over the charge as accountant to Pritam Chand accused on 22.7.1977 and also handed over the cash in balance to the accused on 22.7.1977. Jai Singh PW4 was Peon in the office. He stated that pay for the month of September, 1977 was not disbursed to him. Man Singh PW5, who was peon in the office, also stated that the accused, who was cashier in the office, had embezzled cash to the tune of Rs. 2,696.82. According to this witness, keys of the safe were with the accused when he absconded. After the registration of the case, accused wrote applications/letters Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B to the Director, Agriculture admitting the factum of embezzlemnt by him and his willingness to deposit the amount. Babu Ram PW6 stated that he had broken the chest in question and a sum of Rs. 19.18 was found lying in the chest besides some record. Krishan Kumar, Accountant PW10 stated that the accused used to maintain cashbook as Cashier and he used to check the cashbook. The accused was working as Cashier in their office. On 6.10.1977, accused ran away with an amount of Rs. 2,696.82. Accused sent letter Ex. PW5/B under his signatures. In his cross examination, he stated that the chest was taken to Mistri by the officials of their department and the police was also with them. He was also with the police party. Roop Kishan Chopra PW12, who retired as Deputy Director, Agriculture, stated that the accused was employed in the office of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Kurukshetra. After this embezzlement, the Director of Agriculture, Haryana constituted a committe on 15.6.1978. In the presence of the members of the committee including himself the lock of the safe of the office of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer was got broken. Earlier, the Mistri had tried to open the lock but when he could not open the lock, safe was taken to the shop of Babu Ram PW, who opened the lock with the help of gas welding. From the safe Rs. 19.18 were recovered besides some cashbooks, CTD accountbooks and passbooks etc. Baljit Singh, Agriculture Inspector, PW13 stated that in the year 1977 an amount of Rs. 208.15 was drawn as CDS and interest thereon for him by the accused. Accused, however, did not disburse that amount to him. There are statements of other witnesses also who have stated that the accused had drawn the amount for them but did not disburse the amount to them. Details of the amount drawn by the accused but not disbursed by him are mentioned in Ex. P4. In this case thus there is abundant evidence led by the prosecution to prove that a sum of Rs. 2,696.82 was drawn by the accused payable to Baljit Singh and others. To cap it the prosecution relied upon the own admission of the accused as to embezzlement made by him in applications Ex. PW5/A and PW5/B. No doubt can, therefore, be entertained regarding the embezzlement of the amount of Rs. 2,677.64 by the accused as Cashier of the office of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Kurukshetra.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the safe had not been opened for a sufficiently long time and there could be chances of tampering with of the safe because one key was with the officer and there is no evicence to show that both the keys were with the petitioner. Suffice it to say, if one key was with the officer and the other key was with the accused, safe could not be opened. Safe could be opened only with the application of both the keys simultaneously and that was why the safe had to be got broken. Accused had taken the cashbook Ex. P1 in charge on 22.7.1977. He was given duty of the Cashier on 26.7.1977 as is apparent from duty list Ex. P7. On 6.10.1977 total amount on receipt side was Rs. 5,780.62 and the total amount on payment side was Rs. 3983.80. According to the cashbook a sum of Rs. 2,696.82 remained as balance cash in hand with the accused. Accused did not lead any evidence to show that when he proceeded on leave he handed over the balance cash money to somebody.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ashwani Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1984(1) Recent Criminal Reports 125 , in support of his contention that where key of the safe remained in possession of some officer, there is no surprise that there was pilferage of cash by that officer. In Ashwani Kumar v. The State of Punjab (supra) there was an allegation that the accused had misappropriated 121 bags of rice lying in godown under his charge. Accused had been arrested in connection with some other case earlier. He remained in detention in that case till June 21, 1975, on which date he was released on bail. On the date of his arrest, his person was searched and the key of the office almirah was taken into possesison and in that almirah, there was the key of godown. It was held that there is no suprise that the contents of the godown were tampered with by the police. In this case, however, the safe could not be opened with the application of two keys. Only one key was with the Assistant Soil Conservtion Oficer. With that alone key safe could not have been opened. In my opinion, the charge of embezzlement stood proved against the accused on the strength of prosecution evidence coupled with his own admission as to the factum of embezzlement in applications Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B made by him after the registration of the case. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused has been under tension because of this case for the last about 20 years and the case was registered against him in the year 1978, while now we are in the year 1998. Twenty years tension is more than jail punishment to him.

In Narindra Kumar Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996(2) Recent C.R. 826 , the High Court imposed sentence till rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 500/ on the accused though the charge against him was that while working as Manager of the rice mill and in custody of huge paddy stocks, he misappropriated 1,500 quintals of paddy. Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that the sentence imposed by the High Court was inadequate but not necessary to interfere in view of distance of time. On the strength of these observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this case has been hanging like a Damocles sword for over twenty years on the head of the petitioner and, therefore, lenient view should be taken. Keeping in view that the vargaries of this case have been hanging on the head of the petitioner like a Damocles sward, it would be reasonable if lenient view is taken. So, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the lower courts is slashed to rigorous imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. This revision thus succeeds only to this extent and is accordingly accepted only to this extent in the matter of sentence.

Revision partly accepted.