- (1.) The petitioner herein has challenged the judgement and order dated 03.09.2005 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri, vide which, he has been convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of three months as well as the judgement/order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal.
(2.) The only ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the judgements passed by Courts below is that the matter is purely of civil nature and relied on the judgements rendered by the Apex Court in cases of Bal kishan Dass v. P C Nayar,1991 3 RCR 374 and Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and another, 2005 1 RCR(Cri) 727 to contend that in such like circumstances, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out.
(3.) Heard. There is no dispute with the said proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court. However, in the facts of the present case, charges were framed and due evidence was led. After appreciation of the evidence, the petitioner was found guilty of embezzlement. The Court cannot ignore the exhibits P1 to P6, which are the receipts issued by the accused on behalf of the Mill that the petitioner had received the paddy for de-husking. The report (P12) has been duly proved on record by witness Shri B S Bhatnagar, who appeared as PW16 to show that there was shortage of paddy at the time of his visit in the Mill. The said embezzlement was to the tune of 2048.50 quintals of paddy. The Arbitrator too has made an award which further proves that the petitioner was liable for the shortage of paddy and failed to account for the shortage of 1324.51 quintals of paddy entrusted to him. However, taking into account that the petitioner is first offender and is facing the agony of long trial since the year 1999, as also liable for the payment towards the shortage of paddy in view of the award having been pronounced against him, a lenient view is required to be taken. Moreover, the petitioner has already undergone two months out of the total sentence of one year.;