IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 12.02.2026 Pronounced on; 28.04.2026 RAJINDER SINGH SODHI ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. P.S. Hundal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate, Ms. Arshpreet Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Kanwar Harjinder Singh, Advocate, Mr. Jasjeet Brar, Advocate for the petitioner .

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 13.07.2012, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge Bathinda, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist-petitioner has been dismissed.

2. On 06.05.2003 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, the FIR i.e. FIR No.70 was lodged in Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda.

3. The pith and substance of the above-mentioned FIR was that a contract to provide workers was given to a firm namely ‘M/s Sodhi Erectors’

by the authorities of ‘Guru Hargobind Singh Thermal Plant’, Lehra Mohabat. According to prosecution case the petitioner/accused/convict, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only being proprietor of the above-mentioned firm deducted money from the wages paid to the workers employed for the above- mentioned project, but he did not deposit the above-mentioned amount with the ‘Employees’ Provident Fund Authorities’. It was also the allegation against the petitioner that he also failed to deposit the share pertaining to his own contribution, and thus, misappropriated the above-mentioned money. In addition to above, there was also the allegation that in order to shield himself from the above-mentioned liability, he had filed false challan (receipts) regarding deposit of above-mentioned contribution in the ‘State Bank of India’, and thus, committed forgery of valuable security.

4. Once the above-mentioned FIR was lodged, the investigation was taken up and the petitioner was sent to stand trial for the commission of aforementioned offences. The trial which was conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bathinda, hereinafter being referred to as learned trial Court, culminated into conviction of the petitioner vide judgment dated 24.08.2011, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 409 IPC [the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial Court with regard to charges for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC]. As a result of above-mentioned judgment of conviction, the learned trial Court awarded sentence and directed that the petitioner would have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

5. Aggrieved of the above-mentioned judgment of learned trial Court, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions by filing an appeal. The above-mentioned appeal was dealt with by learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’. However, the above- mentioned appeal did not find favour of learned Appellate Court, and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.07.2012.

6. Aggrieved of the above-mentioned judgments passed by the learned Appellate Court [and also the judgment of learned trial Court], the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that both the Courts i.e. learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have committed the errors of judgment, when both of them failed to appreciate the fact that no case for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was made out against the petitioner. According to petitioner on the basis of allegations contained in the FIR the offence under Section 14(1) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, hereinafter being referred to as Section 14(1) of the EPF & MP Act 1952, was made out.

7. It has also been alleged by the petitione