Virender Vikaram Singh vs State of Haryana

Gurdev Singh, J.—The Petitioner/accused, Virender Vikaram Singh, has come up with the present revision against his conviction recorded u/s 408 IPC by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial Court and which was reduced to one year by the appellate Court.

Brief facts are, that the accused remained posted as Project Officer in Haryana Harijan Kalyan Nigam, Ambala Cantt., from 24.8.1987 to 24.4.1989. During that period he received a sum of Rs. 1,48,225.50 for purchasing raw material and he purchased raw material only for Rs. 42,227/-; thereby criminally mis-appropriating the balance amount of Rs. 1,05,498.60 paise. The matter was reported to the government, and the Chief Secretary, Haryana ordered the registration of the FIR against him. The FIR was registered against him for the offences under Sections 409, 468 and 471 IPC. In the course of investigation the relevant documents were taken into possession and statements were recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure After the completion of the investigation the challan was put in before JMIC, Ambala Cannt, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 408 and 471 IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt the prosecution examined Jagdish Chander Chawla, Account Officer P.W. 1, Jai Pal Accountant P.W. 2, Ajit Singh H.C P.W. 3, Ranjit Singh P.W. 4, A.K. Srivastav Ex. Project Officer P.W. 5, Chaman Lal, Accountant P.W. 6, Ram Niwas Account P.W. 6/A, Raj Kumar, Enquiry Officer P.W. 7, Sultan Singh Accountant P.W. 8, Chander Singh, Retired Inspector P.W. 9, K.L. Saluja, Accounts Officer P.W. 10 and Ravi Azad DSP P.W. 11. After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his false implication. He stated that he had not taken any advance from the Nigam and the purchases used to be made by the purchase committee, as per the orders of the higher officers, against cash. The original bills used to be submitted with the Department. All those bills were shown and after the adjustment of the amount thereof no amount was found due from him. Even "No Due Certificate" was obtained by him from the Nigam. In fact a sum of Rs. 65,000/- is due to him on account of the T.A bills. The accused was called upon to enter on his defence, but he did not produce any evidence in his defence. After hearing Assistant P.P for the State and Defence counsel for the accused and going through the records, the JMIC convicted the accused u/s 408 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused preferred an appeal against that conviction and sentence. As already said above, the appellate Court maintained the conviction and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

Learned Counsel for the accused did not challenge the finding recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. He confined his arguments only to the sentence so imposed upon the accused. He submitted that the accused has already undergone a sentence of imprisonment for a period of three months. The amount said to have been embezzled was deducted from his salary. He is an old person of 72 years suffering from prostate cancer. He is facing his trial from the last 20 years and that the sentence so imposed upon him be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him.

It is a fact that the accused is standing his trial since the year 1991. When his statement was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial Court on 27.1.2000, he stated his age to be 57 years and at the time of conviction he stated his age to be 60 years. Thus, he has crossed 70 years. It is not the case of the prosecution that he is the previous convict. In view of all these facts interest of justice warrants that the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him be reduced.

Accordingly, the sentence so imposed upon the accused is reduced to the period already undergone.

This revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

Records be returned forthwith.