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 :::