State of Punjab vs Baj Singh

V.K. Bali, J.

The State of Punjab has challenged in the present appeal the order of acquittal recorded by Mrs. Bakhshish Kaur, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 16.1.1990.

RespondentBaj Singh son of Gajjan Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of three months by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran. Baj Singh aggrieved, carried an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence which came up for final adjudication before Mrs. Bakhshish Kaur, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar and as referred to above Baj Singh was acquitted and as consequence thereof his appeal was allowed, it is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. Brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution are that Mr. Piara Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Chohla Sahib addressed a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar on 6.4.1985 and brought to his notice that respondentBaj Singh, a Superintendent was not accounting for a huge amount. He had received 100 store bins of the capacity of one ton from Agro Industries Corporation, Ludhiana on 5.7.1982 valued at Rs. 37,200/ but the payment had not been made to the concerned firm. Baj Singh was also not depositing the amount in the office. On the basis of letter, aforesaid case was registered against Baj Singh under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no need to give further details of the case as the only point that has been mooted at present by the learned counsel representing the appellantState is that while passing an order of acquittal, Additional Sessions Judge did not discuss any evidence and by simply observing that there was no evidence whatsoever with regard to misappropriation of the entrusted items to Baj Singh, he deserved to be acquitted.

We have been taken through the statements made by PW2 Baljit Kaur and PW6 Sagar Chand Dhawan which are with regard to entrustment made to respondentBaj Singh as also the statements of PW2 Baljit Kaur, PW3 Rakesh Kumar, PW4 Gurnam Singh, PW5 Tilak Raj, PW7 Lahori Mal and PW8 Piara Singh with regard to misappropriation. On the basis of the statements made by the witnesses referred to above, it could not simply, be stated that no evidence, whatsoever, has been led, particularly, on the point of misappropriation made by respondentBaj Singh. The order acquitting the respondent is very cryptic and as referred to above, has come into being without taking into consideration the evidence led by the prosecution.

Mrs. Vanita Sapra, learned counsel representing the respondentBaj Singh has endeavored to show that even if the evidence of these witnesses was taken into consideration, the same result would have followed. We do not wish to go into the statements of the witnesses aforesaid and critically examine the same at this stage. It was the duty of the first appellate court to come to a particular conclusion after discussing the evidence and in the facts and circumstances of this case, we rather remit this case to the first appellate court for deciding the appeal afresh after taking into consideration the entire evidence led by the prosecution the defence. This appeal is accordingly accepted and the judgment under appeal is set aside. Parties through their Learned counsel are directed to appear on 4.2.1998 before the suceessor court which passed the impugned order.

JUDGMENT accordingly.