Rana Dhian Singh vs U.T.Chandigarh

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos. 303, 304 & 306 of 1986 as all these revisions arise out of the identical judgments of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dated 121986. Three separate challans regarding embezzlement were presented against the petitioner. He was convicted under all the three charges and these revisions arise out of the said convictions.

Rana Dhian Singh petitioner had been convicted by Shri Jagroop Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh under section 409 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and a fine of Rs. 5.000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months in all the three cases separately. In appeal before Shri M. K. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh conviction of the petitioner was maintained but the sentence awarded was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in two other cases and in default clause it was reduced to six months from nine months. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of above said three revision petitions.

The prosecution case, in brief is that the petitioner was working as Head Cashier in the Electricity Operation SubDivision No. 1, Chandigarh during the period from 751973 to 15101973. Bharat Bhushan (Proclaimed Offender) was revenue accountant at that time. Counter Clerk used to receive the payments of bills from the consumers and entry regarding the same was to be made in counter clerk''s receipt book daily. The petitioner was receiving the said amount from the counter clerk everyday in the evening against certificate in the C.C.R. Thereafter the amount so received was used to be entered in the main cash book maintained by the petitioner. After verifying these entries by Bharat Bhushan the amount was to be deposited in the treasury by the petitioner. Till the deposit, the said amount was to be kept in the chest, one key of which used to be with the accused petitioner and the other with Bharat Bhushan. Bodh Raj, Divisional Accountant detected double payment and reported the matter to the Executive Engineer. On checking it was revealed that a sum of Rs. 19000/ had been deposited less. The entries in the main cash book were also found to be tampered with. Matter was reported to the police; case was registered and after investigation the police came to the conclusion that the petitioner in connivance with Bharat Bhushan embezzled the amount of Rs. 19000/. Three separate challans regarding the said amount Rs. 8000/, Rs. 6000/ and Rs. 5000/) were presented against the petitioner in Court and after trial he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the opening part of this judgment.

The prosecution, in support of its case examined PW 1 Madan Lal Bhandari, Cashier who deposed that after receiving the payment of bills from the consumers used to hand over the said payment to the petitioner. PW 3 Bodh Raj Gupta, Divisional Accountant, and PW 7 R. K. Aggarwal, Superintending Engineer, deposed about the working of the petitioner and Bharat Bhushan and how the petitioner embezzled the said amount. PW 6 Nirmal Singh S. I. and PW 9 S. 1. Charan Dass had investigated the case. The evidence of other witnessess is of formal nature.

After close of the prosecution evidence, in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. petitioner admitted that he was posted as Head Cashier and Bharat Bhushan as Revenue Accountant at the relevant time but denied having received any amount. He stated that he was only to make entries in the cash book, but denied tampering with the same. Despite adequate opportunity being granted to him, no evidence in defence was produced.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their help. Mr. Rathor has, argued that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges under sections 465, 468 and 471 and in the light of the total prosecution case, his conviction under section 409 is also doubtful. He further argued that the prosecution case is weak and suffers from a number of infirmities.

I have considered the argument and find myself unable to agree with him. To prove the charge of embezzlement, the prosecution is only required to prove entrustment and embezzlement. In the present case the entrustment of the amount to the accused stands proved from the statement of Counter Clerk who deposed that he had handed over the amount to the accused and the accused had given a certificate in the C.C.R. book. It is not disputed that the accused had given certificate in the C.C.R. book in his own hand. The fact that the money used to remain with the accused is also proved from the fact that one key of the chest used to be with the accused as he was the Head Cashier. This is also not disputed that it was the duty of the accused to enter the amount received from the Counter Clerk in the main cash book. The brochure entries attached to the challan show that less amount was deposited and incorrect entries were made in the cash book. The accused was supposed to make entries in the main cash book of the same amount which was deposited. When there is a discrepancy as less amount was deposited, then the accused cannot escapeliability.

Both the Courts have gone into all aspects of the case and I do not find any justification to differ with the findings arrived at by the Courts below.

The embezzlement relates to 1973 and the accused who was in Government service had lost his service on account of his conviction. In the circumstances of the case, although the conviction of the petitioner is maintained in all the three cases, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one already undergone.

With this modification in the sentence, these revisions are disposed of.