GURMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer made in the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing of FIR No. 104 dated 18.6.2012 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 409 IPC at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, alongwith all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Prayer has also been made for quashing of order dated 28.11.2013 (Annexure P-9) passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur to the extent of directing the trial Court to pass a fresh order for charging the petitioner under the relevant provisions of law.

(2.) The aforementioned FIR was registered by the police on the basis of a complaint received from the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dasuya, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had worked as Secretary of the Bassi Jalal Cooperative Multipurpose Society Limited upto 31.10.2012. During his tenure, the petitioner made payment of Rs. 17,500/- on 30.4.2009 for the work of audit conducted. The audit was required to be conducted by the Government Department. There was no provision in the rules/instructions for making payment on account of work of audit. In this way, the petitioner by making an entry of an expenditure of Rs.17,500/- spent the same for his personal use and, thus, committed embezzlement. He was given an opportunity to submit his clarification with regard to the illegal expenditure of Rs.17,500/- embezzled by him and spent for his personal use but he did not come up with any clarification. Accordingly, the FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 409 IPC.

(3.) Upon completion of investigation and presentation of final report, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya vide order dated 8.5.2013, directed framing of charge under Section 409 IPC against the petitioner. Aggrieved of the same, he filed a revision petition, which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, who vide order dated 28.11.2013 came to the conclusion that as the petitioner was an employee of the Cooperative Society, he could be charged for an offence under Section 408 IPC and not under Section 409 IPC. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial Court charging the petitioner under Section 409 IPC was set aside and the matter remanded to the trial Court to hear the parties and after perusing the documents afresh, pass appropriate order for charging the petitioner under the relevant provisions of law.