AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, Criminal Revisions viz. CRR No. 3939 of 2012 and CRR No.4119 of 2012 are being decided together as the same arise from judgment dated 20.9.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which learned Sessions Judge, Patiala set aside the well reasoned judgment dated 6.8.2011 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana whereby petitioner-Amarjit Singh (in criminal revision No.3939 of 2012) and petitioner-Jagga Mall ( in criminal revision No.4119 of 2012) were acquitted of the charge under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). The trial Court has been directed for recording the statements of petitioners under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C") by putting to them entire incriminating material on record.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the case are that the petitioners alongwith others were sent up for trial for the offence under Sections 406 and 409 of IPC on the allegations that during the year 1997- 1998, M/s Sardar Exports Limited (Miller), Samana, were entrusted with 29380 bags of paddy amounting to Rs.1, 12, 95,969/- owned by the Markfed. The petitioner (Amarjit Singh) alongwith other Directors of Mill misappropriated the same for their own use and committed the offence under Section 406 of IPC. Further, petitioner-Jagga Mall, the then Branch Manager, Markfed, Samana alongwith Balbir Singh Jammu, the then Inspector of Markfed, Branch Samana, being public servants, were alleged to have committed the breach of trust.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the material incriminating evidence was not put to the petitioners, when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code, therefore, the trial Court had rightly acquitted them, whereas, the learned lower Appellate Court had illegally remanded back the case for re-examination of the petitioners alongwith others under Section 313 of the Code thereby allowing the prosecution to fill in the lacuna which could not have been done legally. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments: