SARUP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Patiala, who on appeal upheld the conviction of Sarup Singh, accused petitioner, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and a sentence of one month's simple imprisonment and payment of a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of three months by the Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala. The charge against him was that he on 27th April, 1964, when he was working as compounder in the Veterinary Hospital, Handesra, falsely represented the performance of the marriage ceremony of his brother at village Handesra and cheated the Inspector, Co-operative Society, Dera Bassi, by obtaining 40 kilogrammes of sugar at Handesra. There is no dispute about the facts that the accused-petitioner in his application, Exhibit P.C. for the grant of permit to buy sugar represented that the marriage of his brother aged 28 years was to be performed on 11th May, 1964, at village Handesra. This application is dated the 26th of April, 1964. The permit was duly granted and he got the sugar from the Sugar Depot at Lalru in pursuance thereof. It subsequently transpired that the marriage of the accused-petitioner's brother was performed on 11th May, 1964, but not at village Handesra. Thereupon Prabhu Singh complained to the Director, Food and Civil Supplies, that the accused-petitioner had cheated the Department by making a false representation vide P.A. It was also mentioned in the complaint that Jamiat Singh father of the accused-petitioner had also obtained a permit from the Block Development Officer, Bilaspur, district Ambala for the purchase of 20 kilogrammes of sugar in connection with the marriage of his son. This complaint was in due course forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala, as a result of which the present proceedings were initiated.

(2.) The accused-petitioner in his statement under Section, 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the charge and explained that the house which was in his possession as tenant was got vacated by Rattan Singh and there was no accommodation left with him for the performance of his brother's wedding at village Handesra, hence under compulsion the marriage was performed at Model Town, Jagadhri.

(3.) The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that there is no evidence on the record to show that the accused-petitioner at the time he made the application, Exhibit P.C., for the permit to buy sugar knew or had reason to believe that the marriage of his brother would not be performed at village Handesra. Therefore in his view it cannot be urged with any justification that the accused-petitioner by making false representation to the Department obtained the permit for sugar. He also maintained that the prosecution has not produced on the record any executive instructions and much less referred to any statutory rule, according to which the authority which sanctioned the permit for sugar would not have issued the permit if it had known that the marriage would not be performed at village Handesra. The learned counsel for the respondent after consulting the representative of the department frankly conceded that there were no instructions forbidding the authority which sanctioned the permit for purchaser of sugar to the accused-petitioner if it had come to his knowledge that the marriage was not to be performed at village Handesra. In the circumstances, the main thing which weighed with the authority issuing the permit was the factum of the accused-petitioner's brother's marriage on 11th May, 1964, and not the place where the marriage was to be performed. The evidence shows that the aforesaid marriage was in fact performed on this date but at some other place. I have already said that the place of marriage for the purpose of the present case is immaterial. The mere circumstances that the accused-petitioner's father also obtained a permit for the purchase of 20 kilogrammes of sugar from the Block Development Officer, Bilaspur, was not enough to convict the accused-petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code because this was not made the subject-matter of the charge. Further, I was informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that in connection with the marriage ceremonies, permit for the purchase of one quintal of sugar could be issued under the instructions prevailing on the subject. The accused-petitioner thus cannot be sait to have dishonestly obtained the permit from the Inspector, Co-operative Society, Dera Bassi. He was convicted on inadequate grounds.