Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 November, 2017

CRR-2881-2015 (OM) -:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRR-2881-2015 (OM)
Date of decision : 30.11.2017

Gurdeep Singh
…… Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others
…… Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

***

Present : Mr. Vikram Mangat, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

***

H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)

Gurdeep Singh an accused in FIR No.97 dated 1.7.2012 for

offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC registered with Police Station

Sadar, Samana was convicted by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Samana vide judgement dated 20.1.2014 and vide order of even date was

sentenced as under:-

“Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and

to pay a fine of `10,000/-, in default of payment of fine simple

imprisonment for a period of 30 days for offence under Section

406 IPC.”

1 of 5
02-12-2017 08:40:01 :::
CRR-2881-2015 (OM) -:2:-

Briefly stated facts of the case as per prosecution version are

that District Controller, Food and Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Patiala

had submitted a written complaint dated 15.6.2012 to S.S.P. Patiala with

regard to misappropriation of paddy by M/s Ganesh Rice Mills, Gangroli,

Tehsil Samana for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 contending therein that

PUNGRAIN an agency of Food and Supply Department had stored paddy

in 86514 bags (30279.05 Quintals) during the years 2010-11 and 28163

bags of paddy (9857.90 Quintals) during the years 2011-12 in sheller of

Gurdeep Singh – accused, proprietor of M/s Ganesh Rich Mills Ghangroli;

that as per custom milling policy, owner of the sheller has to give resultant

rice to the government after milling of the paddy, but the accused failed to

do so as per schedule; that when the stock in the sheller was inspected by

Food and Supply Officer Nabha along with other officials on 12.6.2012 it

came out that neither any paddy nor any rice was available in premises of

M/s Ganesh Rice Mills, Ghangroli, in that way Gurdeep Singh proprietor

had misappropriated stock of paddy / resultant rice causing loss to the tune

of `2.20 crores to the State Exchequer in violation of Clause 12(b) of the

agreement. Formal FIR was registered, matter was investigated, accused

was arrested in this case.

After completion of investigation and other formalities, he was

challaned. On presentation of challan in the Court, copies of documents

were supplied to the accused free of cost as envisaged under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

Finding that a prima facie case punishable under Sections 406

and 420 IPC, was made out against the accused and he was charge-sheeted

accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

2 of 5
02-12-2017 08:40:02 :::
CRR-2881-2015 (OM) -:3:-

During course of prosecution evidence, it examined as many as

fifteen witnesses i.e. Dr. Anjuman Bhaskar as PW-1, Chamkaur Singh as

PW-2, Anup Inder Singh Inspector as PW-3, Vivek Singh Inspector as PW-

4, Kuljinder Singh as PW-5, Amarjit Singh DFSO as PW-6, Pavitar Singh

as PW-7, Mewa Singh as PW-8 and proved various documents. .

With that the prosecution evidence got concluded.

Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against accused were

put to him, but he denied the allegations contending that he is innocent and

has been falsely implicated in the present case.

During his defence evidence, the accused examined Gurmeet

Singh as DW-1 and Pargat Singh Sarpanch as DW-2 and also proved certain

documents.

After hearing arguments, the trial Court convicted and

sentenced the accused for offence under Section 406 IPC mentioned above.

Feeling dissatisfied, he had filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions,

which was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and she had

disposed of the same vide judgment dated 23.07.2015 and affirmed the

judgment of trial Court., whereas appeal was dismissed.

Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment, he has filed the

present criminal revision before this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides going

through the record.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that he does not challenge the judgments passed by the Courts below on the

point of conviction but has got submissions to make as regards the sentence

3 of 5
02-12-2017 08:40:02 :::
CRR-2881-2015 (OM) -:4:-

part. He has contended that the petitioner – convict has undergone 1 year, 8

months and 24 days of imprisonment out of total imprisonment of 3 years

awarded to him; that the petitioner is aged about more than 52 years and he

is not previous convict, as such, lenient view in the matter be taken and

sentence awarded to him be reduced.

As per custody certificate placed on the file, the accused is

shown to be involved in criminal case bearing FIR No.104 dated 6.7.2013

for offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC registered with Police Station,

Sadar Samana, Patiala, trial of which is going on and he is reflected to be on

bail in that case.

On the other hand learned State counsel submits that the

sentence imposed should not be interfered with and rather should be

confirmed. A perusal of the custody certificate of the petitioner submitted

by the State counsel goes to show that the he has already undergone one

year, eight months and twenty four days out of total of three years.

After hearing the rival contentions, I find that ends of justice

would be properly met if petitioner – Gurdeep Singh is sentenced to

imprisonment already undergone by him while in custody in the present

case, whereas the part of conviction relating to payment of fine is kept as

intact. Therefore, the impugned judgment is upheld as regards conviction

part qua petitioner – Gurdeep Singh.

However, as far as sentence part is concerned the same is

modified and he is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him in

this case i.e. total sentence including remissions one year, eight months and

twenty four days. Whereas the sentence regarding payment of fine of

`10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for

4 of 5
02-12-2017 08:40:02 :::
CRR-2881-2015 (OM) -:5:-

30 days.

With such modification criminal revision petition of petitioner

– Gurdeep Singh stands disposed of. He be released from the custody on

deposit of fine if not required in any other case.

Intimation in this regard be sent to the quarter concerned.

( H.S. MADAAN )
30.11.2017 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot

1. Whether reportable? No

2. Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes

5 of 5
02-12-2017 08:40:02 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *