LAWS(P&H)-1993-7-113

DEEP CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On July 20, 1993
DEEP CHAND Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEEP Chand petitioner was tried and convicted by the trial Magistrate vide his order dated 26-10-1985 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for committing Criminal breach of trust during the period 8-2-1972 to 10-5-1976 in respect of Rs. 992.50 P entrusted to him as an employee of the District Welfare Office, Jind. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five months. On appeal, maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentence of fine imposed by the trial Magistrate was maintained. However, the petitioner in default of payment of fine was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the orders of the Courts below Deep Chand petitioner filed the present petition.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was employed as a peon in the office of District Welfare Officer, Jind during the aforesaid period. Kitab Singh PW obtained loan from the State of Haryana through District Welfare Officer, Jind. He paid Rs. 100/- to the present petitioner towards part payment to the sum amount. The petitioner, however, did not deposit the amount in the account of Kitab Singh PW through Money Order after informing him that he could not deposit the said amount in the Treasury. Further enquiries revealed that the petitioner similarly received various amounts from other persons who borrowed the amount from the State of haryana through the District Welfare Officer, Jind.Inspector Om Parkash, State Vigilance Burea conducted enquiries into these allegations and submitted his report concerning the commission of temporary embezzlement of Rs. 100/- and permanent embezzlement of Rs. 575/-. On the basis of the said report formal information report was registered. After (sic) the investigation, the petitioner was challaned, tried and convicted as stated above.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the instant case, the learned trial Court has gravely erred in law in framing single charge against the petitioner with regard to the alleged embezzlement which took place during the period 8-2-1972 to 10-5-1976 in direct violation of the mandatory proviso to sub section (2) to Section 212 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code).