BAL MUKAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BAL Mukand son of Ram Partap was tried in case FIR No. 253 dated 26.09.1989 registered at Police Station Jagraon for offences under Sections 409/467/468 IPC. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Petitioner was charged by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Jagraon, who vide his judgment dated 27.11.1993 found him guilty of offences under Section 409/467/468 IPC. Petitioner was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1-1/2 month under Section 409 and 467 IPC. Under Section 468 IPC, he was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. It was further ordered that all substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed appeal and same was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who maintained the conviction of the petitioner for the offences, but reduced the sentence from one year to six months.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that Sukhdev Singh, Superintendent Post Offices, Ludhiana communicated vide a letter dated 13th April, 1989 that Bal Mukand petitioner, who was working under Moga Head Post Office as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (Postman) has embezzled the amount of money orders by preparing a bogus receipt. It is stated that money order No. 320 dated 17.03.1986 amounting to Rs. 350/- and money order No. 268 dated 28.02.1986 for Rs. 300/- were the bogus money orders, which were detected by Harbans Singh, Sub Post Master, Bilaspur. It is stated that during inquiry, Bal Mukand confessed his guilt and deposited Rs. 650/- of two bogus money orders on 29th March, 1986 and 12th March, 1986.

(3.) MR . M.S. Cheema appearing for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the orders of the two courts below. Findings of fact have been returned by two courts below. At this stage, Mr. Cheema very fairly contended that he will not contest his conviction on merits and will confine his arguments that the sentence may be reduced to already undergone. Though offence under Section 409 IPC entail accused with sentence, which may extend upto 10 years and life imprisonment, in the present case, petitioner has already been awarded six months, but at the same time Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the amount of embezzlement was very petty, i.e., Rs. 650/- and the same has been deposited back by the petitioner. Another factor to mitigate the offence is that during departmental proceedings, petitioner himself has admitted his guilt. It is stated by Mr.Cheema that petitioner has undergone 2 months and 24 days out of his actual sentence of six months. The date of embezzlement pertains to year 1986. A period of 22 years is going to elapse. Petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial.