Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.T.Chandigarh on 30 January, 2014
Crl. Revision No.1719 of 2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No.1719 of 2005
Date of Decision: 30.01.2014
Ramesh Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T.Chandigarh ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Preetpal Singh, Advocate
for U.T.Chandigarh.
MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN , J. (ORAL)
In view of commonality of facts and law involved therein Crl.Revision No.1719 of 2005, 1720 of 2005 and 1721 of 2005, titled "Ramesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.T.Chandigarh" are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment being passed in Crl. Revision No.1719 of 2005.
Factual matrix suggests that General Manager, Co- operative Store (Constofed), Punjab, made a complaint Ex.PW1/A, to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, alleging that the present petitioner, who was working as Helper-cum-Assistant Salesman on confectionary counter, Sector-17, Co-operative Store, was issued goods worth Rs.1,33,657.11 on 13.02.1985 as per liability register maintained in the office. He deposited sale proceeds Anju 2014.02.17 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No.1719 of 2005 -2- amounting to Rs.91979.57. It was found that on the aforesaid date, stocks worth Rs.19622.75 were in custody of the petitioner, therefore, there was a shortage of Rs.22054.79. Similarly, when he was posted at Verka counter on 18.05.1985 stocks worth Rs.8673/- were transferred to the petitioner on 22.05.1985. While Regam Bahadur took charge on 22.05.1985, stocks worth Rs.5432.50 were found to be in custody of the petitioner and thus, there was a shortage of Rs.2683.50. In the year 1983-84, stocks worth Rs.66205.50 were transferred to the petitioner but he deposited sale to the tune of Rs.49437.90 and thus, left a shortage of Rs.16765.69. Based upon the aforesaid complaint the First Information Report was recorded, matter was investigated into and on completion of investigation three separate charge sheets as per provisions of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short-'Cr.P.C.'), were presented before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, as contemplated by Section 173(2), Cr.P.C.
Learned trial Magistrate, on hearing the prosecution and the defence, found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code (for short-'the IPC').
After the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, the prosecution examined B.S.Chahal, complainant, as PW1, SI Jai Singh as PW2, R.S.Thakur as PW3, Hira Lal as PW4, SI Sukhdev Singh as PW5 and DSP Surjit Singh as PW6.
Anju 2014.02.17 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No.1719 of 2005 -3-
On close of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, learned trial Court confronted the petitioner with the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied all the circumstances as false, incorrect and reiterated plea of his innocence and false implication but led no evidence in defence.
On hearing the prosecution and the defence and on appraisal of the materials available on record, learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly, held him guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 408, IPC, in all the three cases vide judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2000 and order of sentence dated 24.08.2000.
To challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as recorded by the learned trial Court, the petitioner preferred three appeals which were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (for short-'the appellate Court') vide judgment dated 02.09.2005. To seek upsetting of the judgments of the Courts below, the petitioner has invoked provisions of Section 397/401, Cr.P.C., by way of instant criminal revision.
Respondent-State is contesting the petition. Anju 2014.02.17 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No.1719 of 2005 -4- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel representing the respondent-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner having been not able to point out any illegality and irregularity or jurisdictional error in the judgments recorded by the Courts below, has come out with a plea that the petitioner, in fact, does not challenge the correctness of the findings recorded by the Courts below but he, having faced the ordeal of investigation, trial and consequent proceedings since the year 1987, having already reached the age of 56 years and having lost his job even prior to the registration of the First Information Report, be shown some leniency as regards the quantum of sentence. The submission merits consideration.
In view of the above, the findings of conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court and as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court are maintained. However, order of sentence is modified and substantive sentence of two years awarded to the petitioner is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Sentence of fine and default clauses are, however, maintained.
With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, this petition fails and is dismissed.
Before parting with the judgment, it is directed that all the substantive sentences in all the three cases shall run concurrently.
The petitioner is allowed time to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh within 15 days, who in turn, Anju 2014.02.17 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No.1719 of 2005 -5- shall commit him to custody so as to serve the remainder portion of sentence failing which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, shall cause re-arrest of the petitioner and commit him to custody for the aforesaid purpose.
(Mahavir S. Chauhan) 30.01.2014 Judge anju Anju 2014.02.17 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document