Deep Chand vs State of Haryana

A. S. Nehra, J.

Deep Chand, petitioner was convicted under Sections 420, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal on 2621985 and he was sentenced on 28.2.1985 to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ under Section 420 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ under Section 467 IPC and similarly for an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC, petitioner was sentenced, to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ All these sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, he was, further ordered to undergo R.I. for three months. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 161985, hence this revision petition.

The petitioner was, at the relevant time, an official in the office of the Sub Divisional Education Officer, at Palwal. For availing the loan facility from out of the General Provident Fund Account, the petitioner submitted an application Ex. PA for the grant of Rs. 600/ as its loan. The plea of the petitioner was that the funds were required for performing Bhagwati Jagran. The loan application was supported by affidavit Ex. PB and copy of statement of account i.e. Ex. PC. Request of the petitioner was granted by the Department and the loan amount was disbursed to him. It was during the course of checking by the official of the Accountant General Office that it was found that the contribution of the petitioner during the relevant year was only Rs. 25/ and he had made alteration in it so to make it read as 1125/. It was also found that the petitioner added the word 100 in the interest column and also made alteration in the balance column so that the entry in it (that actually was 25/) read as 1225/.

The matter was brought to the notice of Sub Divisional Education Officer, who, in turn, brought the facts to the notice of District Education Officer, who, on the instructions of higher authorities, lodged FIR (Ex. PD) with the Police.

After the completion of the investigation, the petitioner was challaned and on the basis of the police report and other documents the petitioner was charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 420/465 467/468 and 471 IPC on 16101982. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

Prosecution in support of its case examined PW 1 Uday Singh, Clerk, PW 2 Tara Chand, Clerk, PW 3 Prem Parkash District Education Officer, Faridabad, PW 4 O. P. Gabha, Assistant, PW 5 Manohar Lal Sachdeva, Section Officer, Accountant General Office, Haryana, Chandigarh, PW 6 Bal Raj Sharma, PW 7 Ravi Dutt Sharma. PW 8 Sohan Lal, Teacher, PW 9 Narender Kumar, an official in the office of Accountant General, Haryana, Chandigarh PW 10 Shiv Charan, ASI and PW 11 Kanwar Bhan, Head Constable. Thereafter statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied the allegations put to him. No defence evidence was, however, led by him.

After the order of conviction of the petitioner was announced by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, petitioner appeared on 27th February, 1985 in his defence as a witness and produced Exhibit DWQS 1/1 and stated on oath that he has received Exhibit DWQSI/1 from the Head Master of Government High School and according to the statement an amount of Rs. 1877/ was in his account of General Provident Fund. Since no witness was examined to prove the authenticity of Exhibit DWQSI/1 by the petitioner, therefore, the same was not taken into consideration by the Courts below.

PW5 is Manohar Lal Sachdeva, Section Officer, Accountant General Office, Haryana. His deposition in the Court is that according to the record brought by him only Rs. 25/ stood deposited in the General Provident Fund account of the petitioner. He stated that Ex. PC, statement of account, was prepared by his office, that in column No. 5 there was dash that above it figure of Rs. 100/ has been inserted and that in column No. 4, figure 25 had been changed to 1125 and balance had been shown as Rs. 1225/ instead of Rs. 25/. PW 9 is Narinder Kumar Mandula, Accountant, A. G. Office. His evidence is that Ex. PC had been issued by their offices that in the year 197879 balance in the account of the petitioner was Rs. 25/ that petitioner had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 600/ as advance from account and that when the deposit voucher reached their office, on checking it was found that the petitioner had been given more payment. PW 9, Narinder Kumar Mandula had corroborated evidence of PW 5. PW 1 is Uday Singh, Clerk who had filled in the application Ex. PA of the petitioner. PW 2 is Tara Chand, Clerk who was despatcher and to whom Ex. PA had been marked. PW 3 is Prem Parkash, DEO, who had reported the matter to the Head Office and who was directed by the Head Office to get the case registered against the petitioner. PW 4 is Assistant in the office of SDEO. His evidence is that the petitioner had been paid advance of Rs. 600/ against receipt. PW 6 Balraj Sharma was SDEO at the relevant time. His evidence is that the petitioner was posted as Clerk in the office and on his application Ex. PA a loan of Rs. 600/ was sanctioned and then it was disbursed to him. PW 7 is Ravi Datt Sharma who was Head Master in Ghori High School in July 1979. PW 8 is Sohan Lal, teacher of the School where the petitioner was Clerk. PW 10 is ASI who had investigated the case and PW 11 Kanwar Bhan is Head Constable who had also partly investigated this case.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amount of the petitioner in G.P.F. was Rs. 1877/ and not Rs. 25/ as the petitioner used to deposit Rs. 25/ per month in his G.P.F. account. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was employed in the year 1973 and he was allotted G.P.F. No. in the year 1975 and thereafter he started depositing G.P.F. and that in the year 1980, he applied for this loan and so the amount to his credit could not have been Rs. 25/. It was further argued that Ex. PC shows that amount deducted in one month and not the total amount to the credit of the petitioner. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find no force in this contention. Petitioner had applied for loan vide his application Ex. PA in which he mentioned that net balance in his G.P.F. account was Rs. 1800/. He enclosed the statement of GPF Account Ex. PC which it was shown that the deposit in that year was Rs. 1125/ and interest accrued was Rs. 100/ and thus the balance was Rs. 1225/. PW 6 who was posted as SDEO has stated that the petitioner had given application Ex. PA and that on this application a loan of Rs. 600/ was sanctioned. There is no evidence showing that any witness before hand knew that the petitioner had done manipulation. According to Ex. PD, the manipulation was detected by the office of the Accountant General and then the DEO was directed to institute the report against the petitioner. In Ex. PC in column No. 5 over dash is written the figure 100. In case the petitioner was depositing Rs. 25/ per month then in the year 197879, his deposit could not be Rs. 1125/ and instead it could have been an amount of Rs. 300/. PW 5, Manohar Lal Sachdeva, Section Officer, AG Office, Haryana, stated on oath that according to the record only Rs. 25/ stood in deposit in GPF account of the petitioner. He further stated that Ex. PC, statement of GPF account, was prepared by his office and in column No. 5 figure 100 is written over dash. Hp further stated that in column No. 4 figure of Rs. 25/ has been changed to Rs. 1125/ and the balance had been shown as Rs. 1225/ instead of Rs. 25/. His evidence is fully corroborated by PW 9, Narinder Kumar, Accountant. AG office. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is proved from the documentary evidence produced by PW 5, Manobar Lal Sachdeva. Petitioner had only Rs. 25/ in his GPF account, when he had obtained a loan of Rs. 600/.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner as there was nothing to prove that any wrongful loss has been caused to the Department. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Sat Narain and others v. The State of Punjab, 1973 Chandigarh Law Reporter 172. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sat Narain''s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in that case the money paid by the subscriber to the Company was not entrusted with the Director and a relationship of debtor and creditor only was created because money deposited or lent could be used or utilized as property of the person with whom the deposit had been made or with whom the money had been lent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that it was well known phenomenon that the GPF statements prepared by the Accountant General Office are found to be wrong. In support of his plea, he has invited attention of the Court to the statements of PW 6, PW 7 and PW 9. It is true that the above stated PWs did state that some errors are found in the General Provident Fund Record but at the same time, it does not displace the presumption of correctness that attaches to the official acts which are presumed to be correctly done in ordinary course of business. The mere fact that an error may have been found here and there does not at all support the plea that, even in the instant case, the statement was incorrect. It was for the petitioner to stated have adduced on file material to prove that plea. In so far as the prosecution is concerned, it had amply discharged the onus by proving that the balance at the relevant time in the account of the petitioner was Rs. 25/.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is a handicapped person and he has deposited the amount of loan, which he had obtained, and he will also lose his job. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the speedy trial was the essence of justice and inordinate delay in disposal of a case itself cause sufficient agony to the petitioner, so it was a fit case where the petitioner should not be sent to jail at this stage and the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period during which he remained confined. The offence was committed in 1980 and the petitioner is a family man and he is on bail since July 10, 1985. The present revision petition is pending since 1985 and about 8 years have elapsed. I find that in the instant case, the petitioner has faced protracted litigation and has undergone sufficient mental harassment. So keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case cannot to send the petitioner to jail for undergoing the remaining period of sentence. As a result, I dismiss the revision petition but limit the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. Sentence of fine is however, maintained alongwith the default clause.