JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances leading to the filing of this Revision Petition by Jagtar Singh son of Satpal Singh petitioner, are these. The petitioner was working as a Bus Conductor with Messrs Doaba Transport Company, Hoshiarpur. In that capacity, he was entrusted with certain Vouchers. The allegation against the petitioner is that he collected money after selling the tickets, but he failed to deposit all the Vouchers along with the cash shown therein, with the Cashier of the Company. He is said to have misappropriated, a sum of Rs. 4,000.00 belonging to the Company, in that connection. A complaint was lodged with the Police by the Managing Director of the Company, on the basis of which the petitioner was arrested and prosecuted. On the finding that the petitioner bad misappropriated a sum of about Rs. 600.00, the trial Court, i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur convicted the petitioner under section 408, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to imprisonment already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 2500.00. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo one years Rigorous Imprisonment. Out of the fine, a sum of Rs. 750.00 was ordered to be paid to the complainant- Company by way of compensation for the loss suffered by it. The petitioner filed all appeal against the aforesaid decision, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hoshiarpur. In the Revision petition filed by the Company, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that the whole of the fine, after recovery from the petitioner be paid to the Company as compensation. The present Revision Petition was been filed, with a view to impugn the said verdict.

(2.) At the time of Motion hearing, notice in this case was issued only in regard to sentence. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to argue the Revision Petition on merits, and he was allowed to do so. The contentions raised may be, briefly, noticed. It is submitted in the first instance that there was a delay in the filing of the First Information Report which was lodged on April 19, 1982, though the alleged misappropriation pertained to a much earlier period. The argument does not cut any ice in the circumstances of the present Case. The mere fact that there has been some delay in the lodging of the First Information Report, would not exonerate the petitioner of his culpability. It is further contended that the prosecution had not established that there was a criminal intention on the part of the petitioner to misappropriate the money of the Company. I fail to see the logic of this argument. A number of prosecution witnesses appeared in the witness-box to depose that the Vouchers along with tickets were given to the petitioner for being sold to the passengers and if after recovery of the amount by sale of the tickets, the petitioner did not deposit the sale proceeds with the Cashier of the Company, there could be no better proof of his mens rea. Another argument advanced is that t he Company owned some amount to the petitioner on account of his salary etc. and hence the petitioner could adjust his dues from out of the sale proceeds of the tickets. The argument has just to be noticed and rejected.

(3.) No other point has been submitted in this Revision Petition, which could detract from the finding recorded by the two Courts below. The petitioner has, therefore, been rightly convicted under section 408, Indian Penal Code, and his conviction for the said offence is maintained.