- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgement of Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ -.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that in 1967-68 petitioner was working as Patwari in Lakhasar Tehasil Suratgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar. In that period, some complaints were received against him to the effect that he did not deposit the entire amount of land revenue received from the cultivator-tenants of the area. On that an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the accused petitioner received Rs. 970 from Bhajanlal and deposited only Rs. 9. 70 paise. Similarly, he received Rs. 1294 from Thakur Ram and deposited only Rs. 887/- in the Treasury. On the basis of this, a case was registered under Section 409 IPC against the petitioner. After due investigation, police presented challan under Section 409, 420 and 471, IPC. During trial, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. THE learned trial Court came to the conclusion that accused petitioner committed the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the judgement of trial Court, accused petitioner filed appeal in the Sessions Court. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence till rising of the Court and also reduced the Fine from 2000/- to 1000/ -. Heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner Shri Garg submitted that on the given facts, this is a case of mis-appropriation and not of cheating under Section 420 of IPC, and when the petitioner has not penalised for the offence under Section 409 and he has been convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC, he should be acquitted. For that, he relied on the case of State vs. Dahyalal Dalpatram (1) wherein the Bombay High Court has observed as under : - "where the accused as a Talati employed in the revenue department was invested with the authority to collect land revenue and fines ordered to be recovered under the Land Revenue Code from land-holders, any amount collected as a tax or fine by him as a Talati from a land-holder, becomes public fund and the accused becomes entrusted with that fund, even though it is found that no money was due from the land-holder to the Government and that the Government could not have lawfully enforced the alleged liability of the land-holder. Where therefore the accused makes default in paying the required money collected into the Government treasury as required by the rules made in that behalf under the Land Revenue Code and mis-appropriates the same, he is guilty of criminal breach of trust in respect of that amount. " Firstly we do not know what were the rules in respect of the collection of land revenue. Whether the excess amount collected by Talati is Government money or not? In the case in hand, it is certain that the excess money over and above the due revenue is not a Govt. money under the Land Revenue Act or Rules made thereunder. The excess amounts have been not only collected but retained with him, therefore the case relied upon by Shri Garg is not applicable on the facts of the present case; secondly, a bare reading of section 420 IPC leaves no doubt that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induce the person deceived to deliver any property to any person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to be fined. In this case, the petitioner Ram Chandra has charged Rs. 970 from Bhajanlal and deposited in the revenue account only Rs. 9. 70 paise which was due revenue against Bhajanlal. Similarly in case of Thakur Ram, the revenue due was Rs. 887 but the petitioner dishonestly charged from him Rs. 1294 and deposited in revenue account only Rs. 887/- and kept the rest of the amount with him. This clearly shows that petitioner knew well that the land revenue due in case of Bhajanlal was Rs. 9. 70 paise and against Thakur Ram Rs. 887/ -. The excess amount demanded by the petitioner is nothing but cheating, therefore, in my view, the petitioner has rightly been convicted under Section 420 IPC. The next submission of Shri Garg was that the offence was committed as back as in 1968 and now we are in the year 1992 and in these 24 years, the petitioner has suffered a lot of mental agony in facing the criminal trial and suspension from service. He further submitted that the petitioner is only bread earner of his family and has grown up daughters to marry and prayed that either the benefit of probation be allowed or sentence be reduced to minimum and that his conviction may not come in the way of his service benefits. For that, he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Raju Pappu vs. State of Rajasthan (2), wherein this court has upheld the conviction of the-accused but a lenient view was taken and it was held that the conviction for the offence under section 324 will not come in the way of his employment or for any other purposes.
(3.) IT is true, that the petitioner has suffered a lot, for an amount of about Rs. 1200/- in his service career as well as in facing the criminal trial. He is only the bread earner in his family and has grown up daughters to marry. Considering the overall facts, I reduce the sentence and direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 500/- as fine, in default of payment of fine to undergo one months simple imprisonment. The fine be paid within a period of three months. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. Conviction is upheld but the sentence is reduced to Fine of Rs. 500/ -. The conviction will not come in the way of his service benefits, in view of the decision in case of Raju (supra ). .;