CHATAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order I propose to decide two connected criminal revisions bearing No. 7 of 1989 (Chatar Singh v. State of Haryana) and 2114 of 1988 (Ram Kanwar v. State of Haryana), as both those revisions emanate from the common order recorded by the learned Magistrate as also learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case reveal that case under Sections 408, 467, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code came to be registered against both petitioners, named above, on the basis of letter dated 25.1.1983, which was sent by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. Broadly, allegations in the letter were to be effect that it has since been reported by the Inspector, Co-operative Societies/Executor Officer, Central Co-operative Bank, Kalanaur, that petitioner Ram Kanwar, Secretary of Gudhan Harijan Cooperative Agricultural Services Society had embezzled a sum of Rs. 39,600 from the funds of the society. He has shown this amount as loan issued to 46 members of the society on 1.8.1970 in the cash book but no Temsauq were got filled by him. Registered notices were served upon Ram Kanwar by the Inspector on 17.1.1972 and from the office of the Assistant Registrar on 16.1.1972, but he did not file any reply. From the facts, as stated above, it is evident that he did not want to deposit the amount in the Central Cooperative Bank and that he was guilty of offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the letter aforesaid, investigations followed resulting into booking both the petitioners for the offences, as detailed above. Ram Kanwar was charged under Sections 120-B, 408, 467 and 471 IPC whereas Chatar Singh was also charge-sheeted separately under the same Sections. After resultant trial, the learned Magistrate found both the petitioners guilty under Sections 408, 467 and 471 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the periods, as detailed below :- Charges under Sections Sentence awarded Imprisonment Fine 408 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment (in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months). Rs. 1,000/- 467 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment (in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months). Rs. 1,000/- 471 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment (in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months). Rs. 500/-

(3.) MR . Virinder Singh, learned counsel representing Chatar Singh, petitioner in revision No. 7 of 1989, vehemently contends that since Chatar Singh has been acquitted for the offence under Section 120-B IPC, the prosecution was required to prove offences under Sections 408, 467 and 471 IPC independently against him, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Quite to the contrary, if the statements of prosecution witnesses are examined, it would straightaway transpire that Ram Kanwar, Secretary, petitioner in the other revision, was responsible inasmuch as he has filled bogus temsauq and disbursed the loan to non-existing persons. In other words, by filing temsuq in the manner aforesaid, he had misappropriated the amount. It has further been urged that the case started with the registration of an FIR on the basis of letter, referred to above, which, too, was only against Ram Kanwar and it is only at the investigation stage that Chatar Singh was also involved in this case.