SEWA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEWA Singh petitioner was convicted under section 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana. Under the former section he was sentenced to undergo 1-1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and under the latter, to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Imprisonment in default of payment of fine under each count was also awarded. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved against his convictions and sentences Sewa Singh petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. He did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same but he reduced the sentence of imprisonment under each count to 6 months. The sentences of fine were maintained. Still not feeling satisfied the petitioner has filed this revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that Sewa Singh petitioner was Secretary of the Kalwan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd (for short the Society) during the year 1972. On coming to know that there was some mis-appropriation of funds of the society, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jind, got the accounts of the said Society audited. It was revealed that the petitioner had embezzled Rs. 17,858.63. This amount had been realised by the petitioner from the various loanees of the Society and was not accounted for. The petitioner had also made false entries in the cash book. Notices were issued to the petitioner to deposit the above amount. However, when he did not deposit the amount, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, wrote letter Exhibit PC to the Superintendent of police, Jind' for registration of a case against the petitioner and on its basis formal. First Information Report Exhibit P.W. 21/B was recorded in police station, Narwana. After necessary investigation the accused was charge-sheeted. To connect the accused, with the offences, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses.

(3.) OUT of loanees of the Society from whom the petitioner said to have realised the amount, only P.W. 17 Ram Dia, P.W. 18 Surja and P.W. 19 Lakshmi supported the prosecution version. Some of the other loanees were also examined but they turned hostile to the prosecution and stated that they had not paid any amount to the petitioner. Ram Dia (P.W.17) stated that he had made payment of Rs. 280/- to the petitioner but the latter issued receipt Exhibit P.1 for Rs. 242.00 only. P.W. 18 Surja stated that he had paid Rs. 553/- to the petitioner, who issued receipt Exhibit P.11/A for the same. P.W. 19 Lakshmi stated that he had paid Rs. 458/- to the petitioner. All these witnesses have stated that the petitioner was Secretary of the Society. Thus trial Court held that the prosecution was able to prove that the petitioner had embezzled only the amount which he had realised from the above three 3 witnesses. For that offence he was convicted under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. For making false entries in the account book, the petitioner was convicted under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code.