State of Punjab vs Sat Paul

J.B. Garg, J.

Sat Pal a Shop Assistant of Punsup last posted at Dhuri has been acquitted in two criminal cases Nos. 288 & 299 of 1984 for offences under Sections 406, 408 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code, by Sh. S.S. Hundel, Judicial Magistrate I class, Dhuri on 28.9.1985 and aggrieved against it only a single appeal has been attempted by the State of Punjab.

There is a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the accused that there should have been two separate appeals and not a single appeal against acquittal in two different cases pertaining to two different periods was sufficient.

According to PW I Shingara Singh, Superintendent of PUNSUP, Sangrur, Sat Pal was appointed Sales Assistant first of all at Barnala and then transferred to Malerkotla and thereafter he was transferred to Dhuri on 521979 where he joined on 10.1.1980. The misappropriations in question relate to the period 10.1.1980 to 15.6.1981 when the charge was handed over by the accused to his successor Teja Singh. The police made an attempt to follow the requirement of Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code and divided the occurrence into two challans. There was consolidation of the two challans after the framing of the charges and acquittal was recorded by one judgement. However, the State has attempted a single appeal.

On behalf of the accused attention has been invited to Khetra Basi Samal and another v. The State of Orissa etc., AIR 1970 SC 272 and it has been argued that the two cases retain their individuality. The cases were clubbed together for the purpose of trial and it shall not alter the nature of the cases so as to affect their appeal ability. Relying upon this position of law it as been stressed that filing of a single appeal, whereas the cases were two and charge sheets, framed separately, a prejudice has been caused to the accused in as much as he is not aware as to against what part of the charge the State proposed to challenge the finding of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the Sate of Punjab could not meet these objections.

The evidence of the prosecution such as that of PW2 Hardev Singh, PW3 Harnek Singh, PW 4 Manohar Lal PW6 Chiranji Lal, has also been referred to during the course of arguments and all these witnesses have said that they had been paying price and purchasing articles of domestic consumption such as Ghee, pulses etc. but they have not been able to produce the ration cards or connected documents in the Court. Some of them have said that so often their children only used to go for making the purchases and the witnesses did not know as to whether Sat Paul was the salesman at the relevant time or some other person was performing the duties of a salesman. Most of these independent witnesses have not supported the story of prosecution regarding alleged embezzlement. The conclusion is that in view of the plea raised under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also after perusal of the evidence of the residents of the locality who have not supported the story, it cannot be said that the interference of this court is called for and the appeal of the State of Punjab is hereby dismissed.

JUDGMENT accordingly