Sudershan Kumar vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1393

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Sudershan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
C.R.R. No. 2267 of 2016
Decided On : 17-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Narinder Singh, Ms. Geeta Sharma DAG, Haryana

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 360 - Conviction for financial embezzlement - Conviction upheld due to cogent evidence; however, the sentence was set aside given petitioner's age and good conduct, and was instead released on probation subject to conditions. (Paras 10, 12, 14)

(B) Legal principles - Purpose of criminal law is both punitive and reformative, allowing opportunities for reformation, as emphasized in statutory provisions and relevant judgments. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a bank clerk, was convicted for misappropriating funds amounting to Rs. 2,41,200/- over a period from 1994 to 1995, following a trial and a failed appeal.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved the guilt beyond doubt, leading to conviction, but the court acknowledged the petitioner's former contributions and current circumstances, deciding on probation rather than imprisonment.

Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner, having paid back the embezzled amount prior to the FIR and having no prior convictions, deserved relief under Section 360 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's reasoning focused on balancing punitive needs with opportunities for reformation, interpreting statutory obligations on probation; thus, affirming the conviction while modifying the punishment to reflect the context.

Result: Revision petition stands disposed of, releasing the petitioner on probation after setting aside the substantive sentence.

Table of Content
1. allegations of embezzlement and conviction established. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. defense argues for acquittal and leniency. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court finds no merit for acquittal. (Para 8 , 9)
4. criteria for releasing on probation evaluated and supported by precedent. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. conviction upheld, but probation granted under conditions. (Para 13 , 14)

Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made to the judgment dated 09.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, followed by an order of sentence dated 27.09.2004. Relevant portion therein is reproduced herein:

“……………Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 409 IPC and default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 420 IPC and in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 467 IPC and in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 467 IPC and in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 468 IPC and in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 120-B IPC and default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each………..”

2. Briefly stating facts of the case are that as per allegations levelled by the prosecution against the petitioner, he along with one Uday Kumar Kakkar while posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier with the Haryana Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Sampla, misappropriated certain amount of the depositors by not making correct entries in the cash book register and thereby, caused financial loss of Rs.2,41,200/- to the Bank w.e.f. September, 1994 to November 1995 resulting into registration of FIR No.52 dated 14.02.1996 at Police Station, Sampla under Sections 409 /420/467/468/471/120-B of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. Based thereupon, the petitioner as well as the co-accused Uday Kumar Kakkar were both charge-sheeted under Sections 409 /420/467/468/461/120-B IPC. Upon trial, the petitioners and his co-accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 409 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC vide judgment dated 24.09.2004 and were awarded sentence vide order dated 27.09.2004.

4. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2004 which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide judgment dated 09.10.2006, thereby upholding the judgment passed by the trial Court, resulting into filing of the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the entire amount of alleged embezzlement i.e. Rs. 2,41,200/- already stood deposited with the Bank, even prior to the registration of the FIR in question and the same even finds mentioned in the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner remained employed as Clerk-cum-Casher at Sampla Branch only up to April, 1995 whereas, the t