ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHWANI Kumar, Inspector, Food and Supplies, Department (under suspension) was convicted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Kharar, under Section 409 IPC and was sentenced two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The who petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar affirmed the verdict of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The present Revision Petition has been filed with a view to impugn the decision of the two Courts below.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case is that on July 3, 1975, a meeting was convened of the Officials of the Food and Supplies Department of Rupnagar District. After the conclusion of the meeting about 1.30 p.m. petitioner met Saran Singh Jaggi, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer. Joginder Singh and Mohan Lal Mahajan Food and Supplies Inspectors and told them that the godown which had been entrusted to his charge, had been burglared. On receipt of this information, all the aforesaid officials accompanied the petitioner to the place of the godown, its locks and doors were found intact. The records relating to the stocks in the godown revealed that there should be 360 bags of I.R. 8 variety of rice and 82 bags of ordinary Basmati Rice. The lock of the godown was then opened by means of a key which was supplied by the petitioner and on physical verification of the stock, it was found that there were only 239 bags of rice, i.e. 121 bags less than the required quantity. After noticing this fact, the party of the officials mentioned above, went back to the Headquarters and made a report Exhibit PA. The matter was looked into again by Shri Jaggi who submitted his report Exhibit PB. On the basis of this finding the matter was reported to the Police for registration of the case against the petitioner, which was done.

(3.) ANOTHER peculiar feature of the case, in so far as the lower appellate Court is concerned, is that the learned Sessions Judge has at more than one places in the Judgment made a reference to a statement made by one Madan Lal who owns a house which has a common wall with the godown in question and a door also exists for inter-communication between the two premises. In para 13 of the judgment, extensive reference to the testimony of said Madan Lal has been made. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that no witness by the name of Madan Lal had been produced by the prosecution and it is not understood as to how the learned Sessions Judge made a reference to such a witness and his testimony. The record of the trial Court was also checked up by the learned counsel for the State who conceded that no witness by the name of Madan Lal had been examined in this case. On account of this and the other circumstances of the case, the judgment of the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained.