Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajmer Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.159 of 1996
Date of Decision : April 21, 2010
Ajmer Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Ms. Jagdeep Bains, Advocate
Mr. P.S.Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
By filing the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner had challenged the judgment dated 2.3.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 468 and 477-A IPC were maintained.
The petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 420, 408, 468, 201 and 477-A IPC on the allegations that in the year 1982 he used to work as Secretary in the Sangrur District Cooperative Union Limited, Sangrur. A meeting of the Board of Directors of the Union was held on 16.8.1982 and in his capacity as Secretary of the Union, the petitioner was to record its proceedings. The petitioner made alterations and interpolations in the proceedings of the meeting by changing the effective date of revision of grades of the employees from 1.9.1982 to 1.1.1978. Thereafter, another meeting of the Board of Directors was held on 4.10.1982, wherein as per the agenda, the revision Criminal Revision No.159 of 1996 -2- of grades decided upon by the Sub Committee formed on 16.8.1982 was approved. The petitioner also made an addition in the proceedings by showing as if the grades were operative from 1.1.1978. Another meeting of the Board of Directors was held on 8.8.1983 wherein expenditure incurred upto 30.6.1983 was approved. The petitioner made an addition of amount of Rs.25,076.04p. as the arrears of the salary of the staff from 1.1.1978. The petitioner also prepared a voucher for drawing the amount of Rs.25,076.04p. as arrears of salary of the staff and made an entry in the relevant books.
On the basis of letter No.504 dated 23.5.1985 written by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sangrur, FIR No.221 dated 28.6.1985 was registered at Police Station, Sangrur against the petitioner.
After going through the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court held the petitioner responsible for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 477-A IPC. However, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges under Sections 408 and 201 IPC. Accordingly, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 420 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 468 IPC and imprisonment for one year under Section 477-A IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal in which Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide judgment dated Criminal Revision No.159 of 1996 -3- March 02, 1996 acquitted him of the charge under Section 420 IPC but maintained his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 468 and 477-A IPC.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
On the basis of the evidence brought on the record, the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 468 and 477-A IPC for having forged the proceeding-book of the Union and falsifying the accounts. In the present revision, the evidence led by the prosecution cannot be appreciated so as to hold that the petitioner was not guilty of the offences for which he presently stands convicted and sentenced.
The petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 25 years. While acquitting him of the charge under Section 420 IPC, lower appellate Court held that no amount was actually drawn and, therefore, no wrongful loss occurred to the Union. The petitioner is not shown to be earlier involved in any criminal case. He was taken into custody on 2.3.1996 upon disposal of his appeal by the lower appellate Court. In the present revision, which he filed against his conviction and sentence, he was granted the concession of bail on 11.4.1996. He has been sentenced to undergo maximum imprisonment for two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is now more than 60 years of age. He had already deposited the fine imposed upon him by the trial Criminal Revision No.159 of 1996 -4- Court. Therefore, the substantive sentence of the petitioner be reduced.
Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer by submitting that the petitioner forged the entries in the proceeding book and also falsified the accounts and, therefore, does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence.
Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve the remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him.
Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 468 and 477-A IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the fine of Rs.200/- imposed upon the petitioner for the offence under Section 468 IPC is enhanced to Rs.2,000/-, which be deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall undergo imprisonment for three months.
But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
( T.P.S.MANN )
April 21, 2010 JUDGE
satish