IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Shyam Lal, S/o. Shri Chinga Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 107 of 2012
Decided On : 03-03-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 409 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4 - Employment and service matter - Serving as a Process Server - Offence of Criminal breach of trust - Accused, who was serving as a Process Server in court of Naib Tehsildar, was handed over summons Exhibit PW-3-/A to be served upon for recovery - Though accused, after having served above named person, collected fine of Rs. 250/- in presence of person PW-7, and executed a receipt Exhibit PW-1/B in presence, PW-13, however, he failed to deposit amount in Government treasury - Subsequently on, another summon was given to accused for serving upon PW-8 vide entry made in Register, Ext. PW-4/A, for recovery - Accused served PW-8 with summons and after having collected fine of Rs. 500/-, executed a receipt Exhibit PW-1/D, in presence of persons namely, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11, however, such amount was never deposited in Government treasury.
Finding of the Court:
Payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable - What is reasonable, may depend upon facts and circumstances of each case - Quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account nature of crime, justness of claim by victim and ability of accused to pay - If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably - Payment also vary depending upon the acts of each accused - Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by installments, may also be given - Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default - In view of aforesaid law as well as submissions having been made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused and after taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the present case, Court of considered opinion that present accused can be granted benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Result: Ordered accordingly
ORDER :
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 4.10.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2008, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.12.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in case No. 131/2 of 1998/97 titled State vs. Shyam Lal, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused(hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 409 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks and pay fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.
2. In nut shell, the case of the prosecution is that, on 19.7.1995, accused, who was serving as a Process Server in the court of Naib Tehsildar, was handed over summons Exhibit PW-3-/A to be served upon one Sita Ram son of Shri Pohlo Ram for recovery of Rs. 250/-. Though the accused, after having served above named person, collected fine of Rs. 250/- in the presence of person namely Gurnam Singh PW-7, and executed a receipt Exhibit PW-1/B in the presence of Ranjeet Singh, PW-13, however, he failed to deposit the amount in the Government treasury. Subsequently on 24.7.1995, another summon was given to the accused for serving upon PW-8 Sukh Dei, vide entry made in Register, Ext. PW-4/A, for recovery of Rs. 500/-. Accused served PW-8 Sukh Dei with the summons and after having collected fine of Rs. 500/-, executed a receipt Exhibit PW-1/D, in the presence of persons namely, Jai Singh PW-9, Nand Lal PW-10 and Hari Singh PW-11, however, such amount was never deposited in the Government treasury.
3. Since the accused, despite repeated reminders, failed to deposit the amount in Government treasury, an explanation was called from him by PW-2 Roshan Lal, the then Naib Tehsildar Swarghat, but yet accused failed to deposit the fine amount and as such, information was given to the Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur vide Ext. P-3, by Roshan Lal (PW-2). In the aforesaid background matter was reported to the police by PW-2 Roshan Lal, vide Ext. PW-2/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. 14/A came to be recorded at Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur.
4. PW-14 ASI Tara Singh, conducted investigation. The leave application, Ext. PW14/A and specimen handwriting of the accused were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-14/C. Specimen Handwriting and signatures of the accused were obtained by Shri Arun Bhardwaj, PW-15, the then Executive Magistrate Ghumarwin, which are Exts. PW-14/D-1 to PW-14/D-6 and disputed receipts alongwith aforesaid specimen writing and admitted signatures were sent to the handwriting expert, for comparison, who vide report Exhibit PW-14/E opined that the receipts in issue were issued by the accused and bears his signatures. Exhibit PW-6A and PW-6/B regarding non-deposit of fine, were obtained from PW-6 Gulab Singh. Abstract of duty register Exts. PW-4/A and PW-4/B were also seized form PW-4 Desh Raj
5. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent court of law, which being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused, charged him for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 420 and 409 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 15 witnesses, whereas, accused though in his statement recorded under S. 313 CrPC, denied the case of prosecution in toto but failed to lead any evidence in his defence despite adequate opportunity given to him.
7. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence, led on record by prosecution, though acquitted the accused of charge framed under S. 420 IPC but found him guilty for his having committed offence under S. 409 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as per description given herein above.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and
Probation of offender – Grant of benefit - quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on extra-judicial confessions without corroborative evidence is insufficient for conviction.
Misappropriation by a public servant requires proof of trust, dishonest intent, and encasement of property not belonging to the accused, as upheld in this case.
Procedural irregularities in criminal trials can result in quashing convictions if fair trial principles are violated.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court must ....
Misappropriation by a public servant requires proof of entrustment and dishonest intention, both established here, confirming guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
The court confirmed the conviction for misappropriation and corruption, establishing that the accused alone managed funds, while her confessions were voluntary and credible.
Once entrustment is established, if the accused fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, it can be presumed that he committed the offense of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.