DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Petitioner-Dharam Pal has approached this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail in a case registered as First Information Report No. 11 of 2.1.1996 under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station Safidon. He had approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, with a similar request and the same was rejected by order Annexure P-2 dated 7.8.1996.

(2.) THE First Information Report in question was registered on the basis of a complaint from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Safidon, to the Superintendent of Police, Jind. The petitioner was working as Secretary of Malikpur Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Malikpur. He is alleged to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 79,799.40 upto 19.1.1995. By registered notice dated 10.5.1995 the petitioner was called upon the deposit the said sum for which on 30.5.1995 petitioner Dharam Pal had presented a written statement in person. The cash book showed a sum of Rs. 79,799.40 as due from Dharam Pal, which has been signed by petitioner Dharam Pal. After perusal of the record and after recording statements of the members and also on the perusal of the pass book, it was concluded that the petitioner has embezzled this amount. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 6,319.85 on 16.3.1995 leaving a balance of Rs. 73,475.55. On these allegations the Superintendent of Police of Jind, was requested to register the First Information Report and investigate the matter. Dharam Pal was also placed under suspension.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that the enquiry report annexure P-1 reveals that it is the salesman-Sultan Singh who had embezzled the money and not the petitioner, that Shri Parivar Malik the E.O. of Safidon Branch, who had initiated the present complaint has been indicted by the Enquiry Officer as having tried to shield Sultan Singh, that Sultan Singh has neither been placed under suspension nor any First Information Report has been lodged against him in spite of the enquiry report annexure P-1, that no action has been taken against Mr. Parivar Malik E.O. as also against Balbir Singh, the then Development Officer, and that the enquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty of only dereliction of duty inasmuch as he had signed blank receipts at the asking of the Senior Officers and had handed over the same to Salesman-Sultan Singh. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no case is made out against the petitioner under Section 406 or 409 of the Indian Penal Code.