Subhash Chander vs State of Haryana

T.P.S. Mann, J.—FIR No. 225 dated 13.11.1984 u/s 409 IPC was registered at Police Station Bawanikhera on the basis of an application sent by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Bhiwani to the police. It was alleged therein that the petitioner, who stood posted as Secretary of the Baliali Cooperative Credit and Service Society, had embezzled the funds of the Society.

During investigation of the case, the record of the Society was taken into possession by the police. It was noticed that the audit conducted by the concerned department had found the commission of fraud by the petitioner. Even an enquiry conducted by the department came to a similar conclusion. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested on 9.8.1988. He refused to give specimen signatures and handwriting. It was finally concluded that during his tenure as Secretary of the Society, the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 82,364.68 Ps. In all, fifteen challans regarding various amounts were prepared and filed.

In all the fifteen challans, the petitioner was charged for an offence u/s 408 IPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani convicted the petitioner u/s 408 IPC in all the fifteen challans and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed fifteen different appeals. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani accepted nine of the appeals preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence u/s 408 IPC. However, the remaining six appeals were dismissed. He then filed the present set of six revision petitions, i.e. Criminal Revision Nos. 917 to 922 of 1996, which were admitted on 20.12.1996 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail.

In view of the above, all the aforementioned revision petitions are being disposed of by one common order.

The main plank of the petitioner in all the six revision petitions is that none of the members of the Society, whose amounts were said to have been misappropriated by the petitioner, had supported the case of the prosecution. In such a situation, he could not have been held guilty of misappropriation of any such amount.

It has come in the evidence that all those members of the Society, who were produced by the prosecution in respect of its case, belonged to the same village and as the petitioner had been dealing with them as Secretary of the Society, he was in a position to win them over.

The stand of the petitioner that the liability of the petitioner was only civil in nature as there was a provision for arbitration between the employees and the Society, is not sufficient to absolve him of the criminal charge of misappropriation. Apart from the entries made in the record by the petitioner, the prosecution had relied upon the report of the Auditor as well as the Enquiry Officer of the Bank to prove the manner in which the petitioner was issuing receipts to the loanees, making entries in their passbooks about the payments of the amounts but not making entries in the cash book, ledgers and other records and in the process pocketing the amount so received for his own self. The department had appointed Sh. S.B. Sharma as the Enquiry Officer, who found the embezzlement of a large amount of Rs. 82,364.80 Ps. He further concluded that except a sum of Rs. 7443/- the embezzlement of remaining amount stood proved. He also noticed during his enquiry that a sum of Rs. 21,670/-, which was there in his report, had been deposited by the loanees.

In view of the above, it cannot be said that the conviction of the petitioner for the offence u/s 408 IPC is unsustainable.

The petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1984. The trial of the case commenced in the year 1989 when the challan was presented against the petitioner. The trial took almost four years for its conclusion. The appeals filed by the petitioner were decided by the Appellate Court in about four years'' time. Thereafter, the present set of revisions was filed in the year 1996. The petitioner has remained in custody as a convict for a period of about two months as he was directed to be released on bail vide order dated 20.12.1996. Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, for undergoing his remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of the petitioner in all the six revision petitions is reduced to that already undergone by him.

Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence u/s 408 IPC in all the six revision petitions is affirmed. However, his substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentences of fine alongwith its default clause in all the six revision petitions are maintained.

Accordingly, Criminal Revision Nos. 917 to 922 of 1996 are disposed of.