IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

101 Date of decision: 19.09.2025 Bhushan Chander .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Deol, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for Punjab State Warehousing Corporation.

****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J .

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-revisionist, Bhushan Chander, assailing the concurrent findings of conviction recorded against him under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Zira, vide judgement dated 12.10.1996, as modified in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on 11.10.2000.

2. The learned Trial Court had sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years under Sections 409 and 467 IPC, which was reduced to 02 years each by the learned Appellate Court while affirming the conviction in toto.

3. This Court, in Criminal Revision No.359 of 2001, initially set aside the conviction on the ground of want of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Bhushan Chander :

(2016) 13 SCC 44, categorically held that the protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. does not extend to employees of public sector undertakings, set aside the order of acquittal, and remanded the matter to this Court for consideration on merits. The revision petition is, therefore, being adjudicated afresh.

4. As per the prosecution, FIR No.27 dated 11.02.1991 was registered at Police Station Makhu on the complaint of officials of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (PSWC).

5. The petitioner, while serving as Godown Assistant at the PSWC Centre, Makhu, took charge from Agya Pal Singh, a Technical Assistant, on 07.03.1989 in the presence of Roop Lal, Technical Officer, and R.N. Dhir, Manager. At that time, 86 bales of gunny bags (bardana) were entrusted to him without shortage.

6. On 17.03.1989, a team headed by S.C. Pujara, Deputy Manager, conducted physical verification and found only 79 bales. A further verification on 31.03.1989 by Roop Lal revealed that only 75 bales were available, indicating a shortage of 11 bales valued at Rs.38,841.

7. Scrutiny of the godown register revealed tampering at page 45, where the figure “86” had been overwritten as “79”, thereby concealing the shortage. The stock register containing the interpolations was seized. Statements of departmental officials, including Roop Lal (PW-2), Jaswinder Singh (PW-3), R.N. Dhir (PW-4), Agya Pal Singh (PW-5) and S.C. Pujara (PW-13), were recorded.

8. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, having dominion over the entrusted stock, dishonestly misappropriated 11 bales and forged official records to cover up the shortage.

9. Thirteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution and documentary evidence including the tampered register (Ex.PE), charge report (Ex.PW11/F) and physical verification reports (Ex.PW11/E, Ex.PC) were produced.

10. When examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the allegations claiming, that the bales were stolen and that he had reported the theft to both his superiors and the police vide letter No.931 dated 01.04.1989 (Ex.DW1/A). He denied any role in tampering with records.

11. One defence witness, Harpal Singh (DW-1), was examined to support the plea of theft.

12. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of cogent, oral and documentary evidence, held that :

● the petitioner had taken charge of 86 bales of bardana on

07.03.1989, ● shortages were established through successive verifications, and ● tampering of the register in his exclusive custody stood proved.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced accordingly.

13. The lower Appellate Court, on reappraisal of evidence, concurred with the findings on conviction, while reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment from