Tara Chand vs State of Haryana

V.S. Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

By this common judgment Criminal Revision Nos. 429, 427 and 428 of 1987 can conveniently be disposed of together. Not only the basic facts are identical, the petitioner in all the three revisions is the same.

The relevant facts are that Sirsla Cooperative Agricultural Service Society was functioning in village Sirsla. The petitioner was appointed as its cashier from 15.7.1969 to 24.9.1974. Karam Singh was the Secretary of the society from 12.2.1971 to 16.1.1975. During the audit of the society in the year 1977, it transpired that the petitioner as well as Karam Singh hadembezzled the funds and manipulated its accounts. On ascertaining true facts, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kurukshetra addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra on basis of which the first information report was recorded.

In one case as a result of which Criminal Revision No. 429 of 1987 has been filed, it was alleged that there has been an embezzlement of Rs. 5,170/ . It comprised of five items for the period 7.8.1972 to 29.6.1973. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on 6.4.1987 held the petitioner guilty of the above said offence but recorded that embezzlement proved is only to the extent of Rs. 200/. The sentence was accordingly reduced till the rising of the Court. There was no interference on the quantum of fine imposed.

In the other connected case as a result of which Criminal Revision No. 427 of 1987 has been filed the embezzlement alleged was to the tune of Rs. 6,503/ comprising of four items from 9.5.1974 to 6.8.1974. It was alleged that on 9.5.1974 a sum of Rs. 605/ was shown to have disbursed to Surjan Singh against entry at page No. 8 of the Cash Book. On 2.7.1974 Rs. 98/ were shown to have been paid to Sardara Singh towards the loan vide entry at page No. 15 of the Cash Book. On 6.8.1974 through entry at Page No. 18 of the Cash Book, Rs. 3,800/ were shown to have been disbursed to Ram Parsad. In fact no loan was paid to these persons and no documents like bonds were secured from the above said persons. At page No. 18 an amount of Rs. 2,000/ was shown to have deposited while it was not so deposited. The learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,500/. In default he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The petitioner had preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 6.4.1987 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

Lastly, in Criminal Revision No. 428 of 1987 the facts were basically the same. The case related to embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 4,381/ comprised of three items from 7.8.1971 to 18.4.1972. On 7.8.1971 as per entry in the cash book at page No. 59, Rs. 581/ were shown to have been deposited in the Central Cooperative Bank towards the interest and loan amount. Again on 27.1.1972 as per entry at page No. 71 of the cash book Rs. 3,000/ were shown to have been deposited in the bank towards the same account and on 18.4.1972 an entry at page No. 75 of the cash book was made. Rs. 800/ were recorded to have been deposited in the bank for the purpose of shares in the bank. The learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 800/. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for there months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that Tara Chand was cashier. He was illiterate. He was simply retaining the cash in hand and had no role to play in the alleged embezzlement. But the said contention indeed is devoid of any merit. Since the petitioner was the cashier and making the relevant entries, then unless it is shown that he had no knowledge or intention to make the false entries, the said contention would be of no avail. It has not been so shown in the facts of the present case. Mere floating a defence without any cogent reason would not improve the version of the petitioner.

Perusal of the record in Criminal Revision No. 429 of 1987 shows that the petitioner had shown the deposit of Rs. 200/ in the bank which in fact was not deposited. It was in the evidence of Som Nath PW2 that such a deposit had not been effected. The entry in the cash book patently was wrongly made. The trial court thereupon rightly concluded that petitioner along with Karam Singh had misappropriated the said amount. There was no ground to take a contrary view.

Similarly in Criminal Revision No. 427 of 987 the evidence showed that Surjan Singh PW2, Sardara Singh PW3 and Ram Parshad PW9 did not take any loan shown against their names in entries dated 9.7.1974, 22.7.1974 and 6.8.1974 respectively. Tara Chand PW1 had established that he ever stood surety for Ram Parshad regarding the alleged loan of Rs. 3,800/. There was no record about bonds or other documents. The entries were still made by the petitioner and Karam Singh. They deducted the said amount from the cash in hand. It establishes, therefore, as to how there was criminal breach of trust followed by criminal misappropriation pertaining to the said amount.

Similarly in Criminal Revision No. 428 of 1987, the evidence indicated particularly of Som Nath PW1 Accountant of Bank that three amounts totalling Rs. 4381/ were not deposited in the bank on the given dates. On all the three dates some amount was deposited by the accused in the bank but the above said amount was withheld. The entries were in the hands of Karam Singh. The petitioner was cosharer therein. It was rightly concluded in the facts that they had misappropriated the said amount. The findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard cannot be assailed.

Confronted with that position it has been urged that sentence in any case should be reduced. So far as Criminal Revision No. 429 of 1987 is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had reduced the sentence to the one already undergone. There is no scope for further reduction. As regards the other two revision petitions, the fact remains that incident took place some 13/14 years age. There has been a prolonged trial and the agony indeed cannot be increased. The petitioner has already undergone a part of the sentence. After such a long time it is improper in the facts of the case to direct the petitioner to undergo rest of the sentence. Therefore the interest of justice shall be fully met if the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone.

But for modification in the sentence, the revision petitions fail and are dismissed.