State of Punjab vs Jaspal Singh

N. Kapoor, J.

This is State appeal against the judgment dated November 26, 1984, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran, whereby he acquitted Jaspal Singh, accused, of the offences under Sections 409/466 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

Facts of the prosecution case are as under :

In January. 1978, accused Jaspal Singh was posted as Additional Warehousing Manager at Tarn Taran in the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. On January 23, 1978, Shri Harsharan Singh (P.W. 10), Assistant Storage and Technical Officer of the Corporation visited the State Warehouse at Tarn Taran and inspected the godown No. 13 of fertilizer and noticed the discrepancies in the same :

(1) Although there were 1880 bags according to the record but actually 1848 bags were found. The Warehousing Manager explained that there was standardisation shortage of DAP to the tune of 32 bags which have not been entered;

(2) There were 143 bags of Urea in account of the Food Corporation of India, but : actually, there were 108 Bags and 2022 bags sweep was lying scattered out of the bags;

(3) There were 500 Bags of IFFCO Urea in which 90 bags were lying cut and torn and scattered whereas there was no IFFCO Urea as per ledger. These bags concerned C.M. S. Tarn Taran and this fact was also mentioned by the Inspecting Officer in the Godown Register.

Thereafter on January 25, 1978, Shri H.L. Dhawan (PW7), Storage and Technical Officer, visited the Warehouse at Tarn Taran and made physical verification of the stocks of fertilizer in Godown No. 13 of the Corporation and practically found the same discrepancies as mentioned above and noticed some other discrepancies/irregularities in the working of the Corporation office at Tarn Taran, as detailed in the Inspection Note dated January 29, 1978 (copy Exhibit PD). On the basis of the inspections made by Shri Harsharan Singh, Assistant Storage and Technical Officer (PW 10) and Shri H.L. Dhawan, Storage and Technical Officer (PW 7), a letter dated February 12, 1978 (Exhibit P2) was sent by the Managing Director of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, for registration of a criminal case against the accused. In the letter (Exhibit P2) it was inter alia mentioned that at the time of inspection of the stocks of fertilizer in the State Warehouse at Tarn Taran made by Shri Harsharan Singh (PW 10) on January 23, 1978 and by Shri H. L. Dhawan (PW) on January 25, 1978, it was found that there was shortage of 32 bags of DAP and that there was also shortage of 35 bags of Urea fertilizer. Further, that at that time 2022 bags of sweeping sand dust mixed Urea was also lying in the godown. In the letter (Exhibit P2) it was also mentioned that on further examination of the record of the State Warehouse, Tarn Taran, it was found that there was a book transfer entry showing the shifting of 96 bags of Urea from Godown No. 8 to Godown No. 13 on January 21, 1978. This entry was found to be false as no stocks of fertilizer were transferred to Godown No. 13 against that entry. Further that accused Jaspal Singh was incharge of both the Godowns, i. e. Godown No. 8 and Godown No. 13. In order to cover up the defalcation of 96 bags of Urea from Godown No. 8 against the aforementioned bogus entry, he arranged to make up 61 bags of Godown No. 13 out of Urea stock lying in godown of other agencies. Even after making up those 61 bags, there was still shortage of 35 bags of Urea fertilizer. However, in order to avoid any proceedings against him, Jaspal Singh, accused, showed the entire book balance of 143 bags of Urea Fertilizer as delivered to Punjab Agro Industries Corporation (for short P.A.I.C.), Tarn Taran on January 27, 1978, against the pending release order No. 68 dated November 24, 1977. On formal enquiry from the representative of P.A.I.C, it was found that Jaspal Singh delivered 118 bags physically to them and for the remaining 25, bags he merely got issued the safe bill. Further that accused Jaspal Singh appeared to have made up 10 more bags out of substandard sweeping lying in the godown and delivered the same to P.A.I.C. for use by the agriculturists in contravention of the provisions of the Fertilizer Control JUDGMENT 1957. The accused also appeared to have shown a loss of 32 bags of D.A.P. fertilizer in the process of Standardisation. No work slip was, however, produced in this regard and he in fact appeared to have committed defalcation of 32 bags of DAP fertilizer. The accused thus allegedly committed criminal misappropriation of 32 bag of DAP 35 bags of Urea fertilizer and also allegedly supplied fertilizer of substandard quality to P.A.I.C. in contravention of the provisions of Fertilizer Control JUDGMENT 1957 and also made false and bogus entries regarding the transfer of stocks of fertilizer from Godown No. 8 to Godown 13 with the intention of criminally misappropriating the same. On the basis of letter (Exhibit P2) sent by the Managing Director of the Corporation to the police, formal First information Report (Exhibit PB) under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was originally registered at Police Station, Tarn Taran. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in Court.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Kishore Chand (PW1), Chaman Lal (PW 2), Sub Inspector Mela Ram (PW 4), Manga) Dass, Inspector (PW5), Kulbhushan Kumar Bagga (PW 6), H. L. Dhawan (PW 7), S.S. Sandhu (PW 8), Dial Singh (PW 9) and Harsharan Singh (PW 10).

The accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the incriminating portion of the evidence appearing against him. He further denied that there was any shortage of fertilizer in the godowns of the Corporation. He also denied that he made any false entry in the books of accounts.

The charge against the accused can be broadly examined in three parts. The first part pertains to criminal misappropriation in respect of 32 bags of DAP fertilizer. According to the case set up by the prosecution, 412 bags of DAP fertilizer were available in the stock at the Warehouse as per record, whereas on actual checking by Harsharan Singh (PW 10) on January 23, 1978, it was found that there were only 380 bags of DAP fertilizer. There was thus shortage of 32 bags of DAP fertilizer. The accused by way of clarification, however, came up with the version that DAP fertilizer was, in fact, received in an unstandard form and part of it was duly standardised i. e. making a bag of 50 kilograms of DAP fertilizer each. Out of the total stock, only 412 bags of DAP fertilizer could be standardised and contents of 412 bags were stored in 380 bags containing 50 kilograms of DAP fertilizer each. This way, the alleged loss of 32 bags of DAP fertilizer which was on account of standardisation, stands fully explained. This fact is otherwise also clear from the document (Exhibit P6). Shri Harsharan Singh (PW 10) has admitted in his crossexamination that 380 bags of DAP fertilizer (standardised) were lying in the Warehouse at the time when he inspected the Godown. This way, the first charge against the accused is without any merit.

The second charge against the accused refers to the alleged shortage of Urea fertilizer in the stock. As per prosecution version, there were 143 bags of Urea fertilizer in the Warehouse. However, as against this, only 108 bags of Urea fertilizer were available in the Godown; thus suggesting a shortage of 35 bags of Urea fertilizer. Though the witnesses examined in support of this charge tried to suggest that there had been shortage, but on close scrutiny of the record produced by the prosecution, this charge was also found without any basis. It has come in evidence that 143 bags of Urea were supplied by the Warehousing Corporation to P.A.I.C. on January 27, 1978, vide Exhibit P7. This was soon after the inspection made by the witnesses. Had there been any shortage of stock, 143 bags of Urea could not have been supplied to the P.A.I.C on January 27, 1978. There is nothing on record to suggest that the loss of Urea was made up from the Urea lying scattered on the floor and mixed with the dust and other extraneous particles. No employee of the P.A.I.C. to whom this stock was supplied has been examined in support of the contention of the prosecution that Urea supplied was of substandard quality. Thus, this charge is also without any foundation.

The last allegation against the accused relates to the alleged transfer of bags of Urea fertilizer from Godown No. 8 to Godown No. 13. Had this been so, the difference could have been noticed by H. L. Dhawan (PW 7) and Harsharan Singh (PW 10) when they physically checked the godowns in charge of the accused. We have carefully perused the entries in the register to this effect, but are unable to find any irregularity of any sort. Thus, the charge that the accused had made bogus entries regarding the transfer of stock of fertilizer from Godown No. 8 to Godown No 13 is also without any merit.

May be there were certain discrepancies or irregularities in storing the goods or maintaining the registers, but the same can hardly be deemed to be sufficient to hold a person guilty of criminal breach of trust or of forging a document as contemplated by Sections 409/466 of the Indian Penal Code.

There is also no evidence on record to suggest that the fertilizer supplied to P.A.I.C. was substandard or contained any extraneous material; thereby contravening the provisions of Fertilizer Control JUDGMENT 1957, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The Magistrate, by a wellreasoned order, found no merit in the contentions raised by the prosecution. We have also examined the matter in depth and find that the conclusions arrived at by the Magistrate are proper. Thus, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.