Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nooram Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh R on 15 March, 2018
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 193 of 2008 a/w .
Cr. Revision No. 194 of 2008 Reserved on: 06.03. 2018.
Date of decision: 15.03.2018
Cr. Revision No. 193 of 2008
Nooram Chand ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh r ...Respondent.
Cr. Revision No. 194 of 2008
Nooram Chand ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Dy. A.G. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The present revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') are directed against the judgments passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. on 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 222.09.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2005, whereby he dismissed the appeals filed by the .
petitioner and affirmed the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Anni, District, Kullu, H.P., on 27.01.2005, in Criminal Case No.4-2 of 2002 and Criminal Case No. 4-A-2 of 2002, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months and a pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months and to a pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and in default of the payment of fine imposed upon him, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the aforesaid offences.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.08.2001, Shri Beli Ram, Inspector Post Office, West Sub Division, Rampur Bushahr addressed application Ex.PA to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Nirmand regarding misappropriation of public money by the petitioner. It was alleged that petitioner while working as Gramin Dak Sewak, Branch Post Master at Branch Post Office, Durah in Nither Sub Post Office, District Kullu ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 3 had misappropriated Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- of one year term deposit account Nos. 710039 and 710042. It was further .
alleged that petitioner had misappropriated Rs. 12,500/- from recurring deposit account and Rs. 8000/- of the holder of Indira Vikas Patras No. 60B 352402 to 352409. In this manner, the petitioner had misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 57,500/- and he was absconding since 21.06.2001.
3. On the basis of this application, FIR Ex. PB under Section 409 came to be registered on 22.08.2001. During investigation, it was found that the accused had misappropriated the aforesaid amounts and on conclusion thereof accused came to be challaned for the offences committed under Sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Code.
4. The learned trial Court tried the accused for the aforesaid offences and found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo the imprisonment as above.
5. Aggrieved by the judgments, the petitioner preferred the appeals in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, however, the same came to be dismissed, constraining him to file the instant revision petitions.
6. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate, that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 4 are perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted from all the charges.
.
7. On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General would argue that the judgments rendered by the learned Courts below are based upon the correct appreciation of evidence and passed strictly in accordance with law, therefore, same call for no interference.
8. At the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
outset, it may be observed that the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited and this Court would only interfere in case the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by examining the material placed on record with a view to ascertain that the judgments so rendered by the learned Courts below are not perverse and are based on the correct appreciation of evidence on record. This Court would definitely interfere in case it comes to the conclusion that there is a failure of justice and misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure or where the sentence awarded is not correct. After all, it is the salutary duty of this Court to prevent the abuse of justice or miscarriage of justice or/and correct irregularities, incorrectness committed by the inferior Criminal Court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 5 order. This Court has very limited revisionary jurisdiction as held by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2011, titled as .
Rajinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 13.9.2017, wherein the scope of criminal revision has been delineated in the following manner:-
"In Amur Chand Agrawal vs. Shanti Bose and another, AIR 1973 SC 799, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
In State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu, AIR 1979, SC 663, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments including Akalu Aheer vs. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973, SC 2145, held that the power, being discretionary, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. The Court held that "judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed by tradition methodolised by analogy and discipline by system".
In Pathumma and another vs. Muhammad, AIR 1986, SC 1436, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that High Court "committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence" as in its revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact".
In Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh, AIR 1986 SC 1721, the legal position regarding scope of revisional jurisdiction was summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following terms:
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 6"It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a re-trial of the .
acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a re-trial of the accused. Even in an appeal, the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the findings of fact reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope."
In Ramu @ Ram Kumar vs. Jagannath, AIR 1991, SC 26, Hon'ble Supreme court cautioned the revisional Courts not to lightly exercise the revisional jurisdiction at the behest of a private complainant.
In State of Karnataka vs. Appu Balu, AIR 1993, SC 1126 = II (1992) CCR 458 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the revisional powers, it is not permissible for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence.
In Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 26 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint."
In Kaptan Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and another, AIR 1997 SC 2485 = II (1997) CCR 109 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments, particularly Chinnaswami vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 ; Mahendra Pratap vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968, SC 707; P.N. G. Raju vs. B.P. Appadu, AIR 1975, SC 1854 and Ayodhya vs. Ram Sumer Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1415 and held that revisional power can be exercised only when "there exists a manifest ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 7 illegality in the order or there is a grave miscarriage of justice".
.
In State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"In Its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its r own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice."
In State of A.P. vs. Rajagopala Rao (2000) 10 SCC 338, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"The High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment."
9.. Having set out the legal parameters for exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it cannot be denied that in case findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse then obviously this Court would be entitled to interfere with the findings so recorded.
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 810. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that four separate and distinct allegations of misappropriation having .
been levelled against the petitioner, which are as follows:-
(i) One year term deposit-Account No. 710039 = Rs. 12,000/-
(ii) One year term deposit-Account No. 710042 = Rs.25,000/-
(iii) Recurring deposit = 12,500/-
(iv) Indira Vikas Patras No. 60B 352402 to 352409 = Rs.8000/-
11.
r to Total = Rs. 57,500/-
The witnesses examined in both the cases are common though the order in which they have been examined is slightly different, therefore, they shall only be referred to as PWs.
12. PW Beli Ram, Inspector Post Office, Rampur, deposed that the accused was posted as Gram Dak Sewak, Branch Office at Durah. On a complaint having been lodged, he conducted an inquiry and found that the accused had misappropriated the amount of money order. The complaints were made by S/Shri Ram Lal and Khem Chand depositors to the effect that the amount deposited by them had not been paid to them and as per passbooks, these accounts have been closed. He filed a report before the Superintendent, Post Office, Rampur and moved an application to the SHO for recording of FIR. One of the depositor Smt. Shardha Devi also intimated about misappropriation of Rs.12,500/- which was deposited by her in the account. An ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 9 amount of Rs.8000/- of Indira Vikas Patras No. 60B-352402 to 352409 had also been misappropriated by the petitioner. The .
petitioner had in this manner misappropriated a total sum of Rs.57,500/-. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that passbooks for payment in excess of Rs.2000/- were being forwarded to Rampur Post Office.
13. PW Madan Lal, who at the relevant time was posted as Superintendent of Post Office, Rampur was also examined and stated that on 24.08.2001, he produced passbooks of Ram Lal and Khem Chand, Indira Vikas Patras and appointment orders of the petitioner before the Police in presence of S/Shri Hira Lal and Hardev Sharma. The passbooks bearing account No. 710039, 710042, payment vouchers, request letter, Indira Vikas Patras bearing No. 60B-352402 to 352409, TD Journal, applications for opening of account bearing No. 710039 of Khem Chand and account No. 710042 of Ram Lal and receipt No. 32, dated 21.10.1995 for Rs.4000/- in the name of Smt. Sunita Devi were taken into possession by the police as per memo.
14. PW Khem Chand, depositor, stated that he had deposited Rs. 12,000/- in one year term deposit with the Post Office, Durah with the accused. The accused had paid Rs. 840/-
on account of interest to him and balance amount had not been paid to him. The accused had misappropriated the amount and ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 10 the withdrawal receipt had not been signed by him. In cross-
examination, this witness stated that he had been paid the entire .
interest. He did not admit that Rs.12,000/- had been paid to him.
15. PW Ram Lal, depositor, deposed that he had deposited Rs. 25,000/- with the accused at the post office as per application duly exhibited on record and out of the aforesaid amount only Rs. 2730/- towards interest was paid to him and he had again deposited the amount for one year on which he was paid interest of Rs.1730/-, while the remaining amount was misappropriated by the petitioner after withdrawing the same from his account. The withdrawal voucher did not bear his signature. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he had not lodged any written complaint.
16. PW Smt. Sharda Devi, depositor, deposed that accused was working as Gramin Dak Sewak at branch Post Office, Durah, where she has opened an RD account of Rs.1000/-
and had deposited Rs.45,000/- till April, 2001. The accused had misappropriated this amount and the voucher dated 07.09.1999 did not bear her signature. In cross-examination, she stated that she came to know about the misappropriation during the inquiry.
17. PW Hira Lal, Constable deposed that documents were taken into possession by the Police from Madan Lal Rana, Superintendent, Rampur Division and memo to this effect was ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 11 duly prepared. The police had also taken into possession RD and passbook.
.
18. PW Smt. Sunita Devi, depositor stated that her marriage was performed with Shri Jawahar Lal in the year, 1995, who belongs to village Durah that is also the village of the petitioner. At the time of marriage, her father gifted her Rs.4000/-. She had given this amount to Shri Chhaya Ram for purchasing bonds for a period of 5 ½ years. She approached the accused for encashment of the bonds and the bonds were handed over by her to him and the accused issued her receipt Mark-A and kept the bonds with him and called her after two days on which date the petitioner was not available and the petitioner again called her on Monday on which date he was not available. She thereafter addressed a complaint to the Post Master General of Himachal Pradesh stating therein that the amount of bonds had not been paid to her till date. In cross-
examination, this witness stated that every third day she has been visiting the post office to collect the amount of bonds. She denied that she had handed over the Indira Vikas Patras to her father. She expressed ignorance that her father had handed over the Indira Vikas Patras to Shri Chhaya Ram and the amount had been paid to her father.
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 1219. PW Shri Munni Lal, the father of Smt. Sunita Devi appeared in the witness box and stated that at the time of .
marriage of his daughter, he had gifted Indira Vikas Patras of the denomination of Rs.4000/- issued by Post Office, Durah. He further stated that he had not signed Q3 to Q10 on the back side of the bonds. He further stated that he was informed by her daughter that she had handed over the bonds to the petitioner and he had encashed the amount and misappropriated the same. In cross-examination, he denied having encahsed the bonds at Nither sub Post Office.
20. Shri Chhaya Ram appeared in the witness box and stated that he remained posted as Branch Post Master at Durah for the period 1988 to 1998 and Smt. Sunita pad purchased Indira Vikas Patras of the denomination of Rs.4000/- from him.
Bonds were procured from Nither branch and delivered to Smt. Sunita Devi and the same were issued on 24.10.1995 and had been duly entered in TD Journal. He also opened RD account of Rs.1000/- per month in the name of Smt. Sharda Devi for a period of five years and the petitioner remained posted in Branch Post Office at Durah after him. In cross-examination, this witness stated that Indira Vikas Patras were to be forwarded to sub Postmaster, Nither alongwith branch office slip for sanction and ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 13 branch Postmaster was competent to make payment up to Rs.500/- and the amount is paid after tallying the signature.
.
21. Shri Noya Ram, resident of Durah appeared as PW10 and stated that he was posted as Mail carrier at Durah branch Post Office since 1999 and the petitioner was also posted as Branch Postmaster. On 26.04.2001, the petitioner delivered eight Indira Vikas Patras of the denomination of Rs.1000/- each to him, which he delivered to Shri Mohan Lal, sub Postmaster at Nither and Indira Vikas Patras were signed by Shri Munni Lal. The Indira Vikas Patras did not bear the address of Munni Lal and the sub Postmaster had discussed with the petitioner and he noted down the address on the Indira Vikas Patra of Munni Lal as conveyed by the petitioner and the amount of Rs.8000/- was handed over to him by Shri Munni Lal sub Postmaster which he in turn handed over to the petitioner on 26.04.2001. The petitioner did not make payment of the amount to Shri Munni Lal in his presence. In cross-examination this witness stated that Indira Vikas Patras are forwarded to sub Postmaster, Nither under RDBO slip. He admitted that Indira Vikas Patras were not accompanied by B.O. slip. He clarified that the petitioner despite his requests delivered the Indira Vikas Patras by hand to him and he had brought the amount in cash. He further clarified that the mail is not carried by hand and no record of Indira Vikas Patra is maintained.
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 1422. Shri Budhi Singh, Postmaster, Post Office, Rampur Bushahr, appeared as a witness and stated that on 11.01.2002 .
he handed over RD No. 222771 of Shardha Devi to the police and memo to this effect was duly executed. In cross-examination, he stated that memo was not in respect of Indira Vikas Patras.
23. Shri Ashok Kumar, Office Assistant, Postal Division, Rampur Bushahr was also examined as a witness, who deposed that he remained posted in Rampur w.e.f. 04.05.2001 and produced copy of appointment order of Shri Chhaya Nand as also the copy of appointment order of the petitioner and one Hari Chand, which was duly signed by Shri Hira Lal, Constable (supra).
24. Shri Sunka Ram, who was posted as Postal Assistant at Postal Division, Rampur w.e.f. January, 1999 appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 28.06.2002, the Inspector had produced RD Journal of the Durah branch office, leave application dated 11.06.2001, application for no dues certificate dated 18.02.1999 of the petitioner and the application dated 25.02.1999 of the accused for issuance of bank certificate.
25. Shri Hari Chand, Extra Departmental Dak Assistant appeared as witness and stated that he had worked as branch Postmaster of Durah during the period 1998 to 1999. He stated that Chhaya Nand was appointed as teacher and thereafter the petitioner was posted as branch Postmaster at Durah ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 15 during the period 1999 to 2002 and the charge was handed over to him, as the petitioner was absconding. He opened one year .
term deposit account of Shri Ram Lal and Shri Khem Chand and the passbooks and duly proved the passbooks of these accounts, which were signed by him. He admitted that the depositor was responsible for depositing the amount and the amount was to be released after sanction from sub Postmaster after tallying the
26.
r to signatures. He further clarified that sub Postmaster cannot sanction payment without B.O. slip.
PW Prakash Chand, SHO, Police Station, Nirmand deposed that on receipt of the application from the Inspector, Post Office, he had recorded the FIR in this case and thereafter taken into possession all the records of the Post Office, Rampur by executing a memo to this effect. The copy of appointment letter was also taken into possession by him and thereafter statements of witnesses were also recorded and since the petitioner did not associate himself, he was declared as proclaimed offender.
27. PW Mohan Lal, who remained posted as Sub Postmaster at Nither during the period 1998 to April, 2002 was examined as a witness and stated that postal branch Durah was under him. On 24.06.2001, Shri Noya Ram, Mailoverseer brought eight Indira Vikas Patras in the denomination of Rs. 8000/- each ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 16 to him which were purportedly signed by Shri Munni Lal, though his address was not recorded over the same. He after making .
call to the petitioner, recorded address of Shri Munni Lal on Indira Vikas Patras in his presence. He after tallying the serial nos. on the Indira Vikas Patras recorded the date of payment therein and handed over Rs.8000/- to Shri Noya Ram who, in turn, signed those Vikas Patras. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that amount was not paid in absence of the claimant and the amount was paid to Shri Noya Ram in good faith for delivery to the accused.
28. PW Ramesh Lal, Investigating Officer, Police Station, Nirmand during 2001 to 2002 deposed that he had recorded the statements of S/Shri Chhaya Nand and Hari Chand.
29. PW Bishan Dass, Naib Tehsildar, proved the specimen writing and signature, which he had obtained of the petitioner.
30. PW Dr. B.A. Vaid, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents deposed that he had received specialised training in the scientific examination of documents including handwriting identification, detection of forgery and allied subjects. He duly proved on record the questioned document that was sent to him for examination.
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 1731. A close scrutiny of testimonies as referred to above makes it absolutely clear that the petitioner at the relevant time .
was posted as Gram Dak Sewak and during his posting had been discharging his duties as a Postmaster and receiving the deposits and opening accounts. The payments were to be made to the account holders after maturity of their accounts and the sanction for payment in excess of Rs.2000/- were to be obtained from the sub Postmaster.
32. Further close scrutiny of the testimonies of Smt. Sharda Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi would reveal that the amount of Rs.12,500/- and Rs.8,000/- has not been paid to them. PW5 Smt. Sharda Devi has specifically stated that she had opened her RD account of Rs.1,000/- and deposited Rs. 45,000/- till April, 2001 but the accused had not paid the amount of Rs.12,500/- to her. Similarly, Smt. Sunita Devi deposed that she had been gifted Rs.4,000/- at the time of her marriage which she had handed over to Shri Chhaya Ram for purchasing of bonds for the period of five and half years and on maturity handed over the same to the petitioner but petitioner after encashing the same did not hand over the amount so received to her. Thus, the offences enumerated in para 10(iii) & (v) (supra) stands duly proved.
33. Now, adverting to the amounts mentioned at serial No. 1 and 2 (supra), strong exception is taken to the findings ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 18 recorded by the learned Courts below qua these two amounts on the ground that it was the specific case of the prosecution that .
even though the witnesses had signed on the withdrawal forms relating to these amounts (Exts. P3 and P4 respectively), however, while appearing as witnesses, both the account holders have denied that they have taken the complete sum assured by appending their signatures over the aforesaid withdrawal forms, but they had, in fact, not received any payment.
34. Once that be so, then obviously, the statements of these two witnesses shatter the very core of the prosecution case, so far as it relates to the offences mentioned at serial Nos.
1 and 2.
35. Apart from above, it would be noticed that even the handwriting expert has not been able to give any definite opinion with regard to the handwriting as existing on these withdrawal forms.
36. It is more than settled that once the testimonies of the material witnessess contain material contradictions, considerable improvement, severe infirmities, which go to the root of the matter, shake and check the basic version and core of the prosecution case, making the testimonies of these witnesses unworthy of any credence, it cannot be held that the allegations against the accused stand proved beyond reasonable doubt.
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 1937. Yet, this Court cannot lose sight on the fact that as regards the allegations as set out in serial Nos. 3 and 4 (supra), .
the same stand proved to the hilt even in the report of the handwriting expert, who has been examined as PW 18 - Dr. B. A. Vaid.
38. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that the proceedings in these keeping r in cases were initiated more than one and half decade back, therefore, view the latest trends of jurisprudence, while sentencing the petitioner, a liberal view may criminal be taken.
39. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the following judgments rendered by this Court:-
(i) Labdi Ram vs. State of H.P. 1984 (3) crimes 501;
(ii) Bhagat Ram vs. State of H.P. 1981 Cri.L.J 2520;
(iii) State of H.P. vs. Ishwar Dass 1999 (3) Shim. L.C. 446
40. He would further argue that the petitioner even if not acquitted, should be released on probation after taking into consideration that the criminal jurisprudence is undergoing shift from deterrent and retributive to humanising and, therefore, balance must be maintained between releasing a convict on admonition or probation and putting the convict in jail. A strong ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:49 :::HCHP 20 reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State through Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti .
Corruption Branch, Chandigarh vs. Sanjiv Bhalla and another (2015) 13 SCC 444.
41. This prayer is strongly opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General by contending that the petitioner has misappropriated large amount of money of the poor rustic villagers, many of whom were illiterate and ignorant ladies.
42. Admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 471 IPC. The offences for which the petitioner has been charged are serious, particularly, in the background in which the petitioner being a person of the area, enjoyed the trust and confidence of the local people but he betrayed the same in most outrageous manner.
The poor rustic villagers and ignorant ladies were deprived of their hard earned money. The petitioner has committed an act of cheating and criminal breach of trust by usurping the hard earned money of these poor rustic villagers and cannot, therefore, be shown any leniency, more particularly, when as against the sentence prescribed by the statute, the maximum sentence that has been passed against him is hardly one year rigorous imprisonment.
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:50 :::HCHP 2143. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
.
March 3, 2018 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(Sanjeev) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2018 23:06:50 :::HCHP