Harpal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3991 UK

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2014

Harpal Singh                                         ...Revisionist

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                    ...Respondents


Present:-
              Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
              Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. for the State.
              Mr. B.S. Bhandari, Advocate for the private respondents.

                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

following:-

(i) The judgment and order dated 23.04.2014,

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2010,

Nathi Singh and Another Versus State, by

the court of Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi

("the appeal"). By it, judgment and order

dated 30.06.2010/07.07.2010 passed in

Criminal Case No. 104 of 2003, State Vs.

Nathi Singh and Another, by the court of

Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District

Uttarkashi ("the case") has been set aside

and the private respondents have been

acquitted of the charge under Section 408

IPC. By the same judgment, the revisionist

has been directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- each

to the private respondents as

compensation.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

3. The case was based on an application filed by the

revisionist under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"). According to it, the revisionist

then was Chairperson of a Co-operative Society ("the society").

He had given a cheque of Rs. 85,000/- to four persons, including

the private respondents for purchasing manure. They purchased

manure, but did not deposit the sale proceeds to the tune of

Rs. 61,782.26/- in the account of the society, thereby,

misappropriated the amount. In this FIR, after investigation,

chargesheet was submitted against the private respondents for

the offences punishable under Section 408 and 409 IPC.

4. After cognizance having been taken on 04.07.2006,

charge under Section 408 and 409 IPC was framed against the

private respondents, to which they denied and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined five

witnesses namely PW1, Harpal Singh, the revisionist, PW2,

Saroop Singh Kanthura, Bank Manager, PW3, Devendra Singh

Rana, PW4 Sobha Ram Sharma and PW5, Jabar Singh Aswal,

the Investigating Officer.

6. The private respondents were examined under

Section 313 of the Code. They denied the evidence. According

to them, they were innocent; the manure was not in their

charge; in fact, according to the private respondent Nathi

Singh, he has been falsely implicated. The private respondent

Dhan Singh would submit that he was merely a Peon in the

society. He is not responsible for any act of the society with

regard to misappropriation, etc.

7. After hearing the parties, by the judgment and

order dated 30.06.2010/07.07.2010, the private respondents

have been acquitted of the charge under Section 409 IPC,

but they were convicted for the charge under Section 408 IPC

and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a

fine of Rs. 1,000.

8. This judgment and order dated

30.06.2010/07.07.2010, passed in the case, was challenged

in the appeal, which, as stated, was allowed on 23.04.2014

and the private respondents have been acquitted of the

charge under Section 408 IPC but the revisionist has been

directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- each to the

private respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the private respondents were convicted by the

trial court. Therefore, being informant, in the appeal the

revisionist could not have been directed to pay

compensation. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that he restricts his argument to the extent that the

revisionist may not be directed to pay any compensation. As

a chairperson of the society, he had lodged the FIR.

10. Learned State Counsel would submit that the

prosecution witnesses have proved the case.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the private

respondents would submit that if that part of impugned

order is set aside, by which the revisionist has been directed

to pay compensation, the private respondents have no

objection.

12. It is a case in which the trial court has recorded

a finding of guilt, but in the appeal, it has been set aside and

the private respondents have been acquitted of the charge

under Section 408 IPC. Learned counsel for the revisionist

does not assail the acquittal of private respondents recorded

in the appeal. He would submit that the revisionist ought not

to have been directed to pay compensation under Section

358 of the Code.

13. As witness, PW1, Harpal Singh, the revisionist,

has stated that he had given a cheque for purchasing

manure, but the sale proceeds were not deposited.

14. PW2, Saroop Singh Kanthura, is the Bank

Manager. He also speaks of a cheque having been given by

the revisionist. He also tells that the entire sale proceeds of

the manure was not deposited in the Bank and the balance

was Rs. 61,783.79/-.

15. PW3, Devendra Singh Rana, would tell about the

role of private respondent Dhan Singh. According to him, he

was a salesman in the society.

16. PW4, Sobha Ram Sharma, had inspected the

godown of the society and did not find any manure in the

stock.

17. PW5, Jabar Singh Aswal, is the Investigating

Officer.

18. As stated, based on the evidence adduced by the

prosecution, the trial court had convicted the private

respondents for the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC.

In the appeal, the appellate court had re-appreciated the

evidence and set aside the conviction of the private

respondents. In fact, it was held by the court in appeal that the

entrustment and specific role of the private respondents has

not been proved by the prosecution. It is not put to challenge.

19. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the

view that, in fact, the revisionist ought not to have been

directed to pay compensation to the private respondents. In his

capacity, as the chairperson of the society, the revisionist did

file an FIR, in which after investigation, chargesheet was

submitted and cognizance taken. As stated, charge was

framed, evidence adduced and finding of guilt recorded. The

finding was upset in appeal.

20. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the part

of impugned order, by which the revisionist has been directed

to pay compensation, deserves to be set aside.

21. The acquittal of the private respondents is

upheld. But that part of the impugned order is set aside by

which the revisionist has been directed to pay compensation of

Rs, 1,000/- each to the private respondents, under Section 358

of the Code.

22. The impugned judgment and order dated

23.04.2014, is modified to the extent as indicated above.

23. The revision is partly allowed, accordingly.

24. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court

concerned along with the lower court record.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.12.2022 Ravi Bisht