Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 18.03.2025 vs State Of H.P on 8 May, 2025
2025:HHC:13178
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 579 of 2023
Reserved on: 18.03.2025
Date of Decision: 08.05.2025.
Hukam Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General, for the respondent/State.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present petition is directed against the judgment
dated 15.09.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and
order dated 16.06.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld (the
parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they
were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2025:HHC:13178
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present
petition are that the police presented a challan against the
accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of
an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant, Nokh Ram
(PW1), made a complaint to the police on 27.09.2011, stating
that he was allotted the work of construction of a tank by the
IPH Department on 11.09.2009. He could not find the labour
and the mason to execute the work. He engaged Hukam Ram
as a Mason on 08.07.2011. Hukam Ram offered to execute the
work on contract. The informant executed an agreement for
constructing a tank for ₹75,000/-. He paid ₹20,000/- on
31.07.2011. He obtained 1000 kgs of iron bars and 50 bags of
cement from the IPH Department on 01.08.2011 vide challan
Nos 1661 and 1662. These were transported in a jeep bearing
registration No. HP65-0107 and a tractor bearing
registration No. HP37-8598 to Village Badogi. These were
kept inside the room of Sh. Shiv Ram (PW2). The informant
handed over the key to accused Hukam Ram with a direction
to take care of the material. The work could not be executed
for some days due to the rain. The informant visited Village
3
2025:HHC:13178
Badogi on 20.09.2011. Accused Hukam Ram told the
informant that the cement bags and the iron bars were
stolen. The informant asked the accused to get the store
checked, but the accused replied that the keys were kept by
him at home. The informant told the accused that the store
was locked, and how a theft could have taken place. He
directed Hukam Ram to bring the key. However, Hukam Ram
did not bring the key. He also stopped picking up the
informant’s phone. Parwati Devi (PW3) told the informant
that Hukam Ram and Sunder Singh had loaded the iron bars
and the cement bags in the vehicle. An entry (Ex.PW1/B) was
recorded in the Police Post, Zari. FIR (Ex.PW9/B) was
registered in the Police Station. Dhiraj Singh (PW9)
conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and
prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/C). The informant produced,
tender challans (Ex.PW1/C, Ex. P1 and P2) and an agreement
(Ex.PW1/A). These were seized vide Seizure Memo
(Ex.PW1/D). The iron bars were seized vide Seizure Memo
(Ex.PW1/E). These were handed over on a sapurdari to the
informant. Photographs (Ex. D1 to D3) were taken. The
statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version.
4
2025:HHC:13178
After the completion of the investigation, the challan was
prepared and presented before the Court.
3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the
commission of an offence punishable under Section 406 of the
IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined 09 witnesses to prove its
case. Nokh Ram (PW1) is the informant. Shiv Ram (PW2) is the
owner of the room where the cement bags and iron bars were kept.
Parwati Devi (PW3) is an eyewitness who saw the accused
transporting the iron bars and the cement bags. Raj Devender
(PW4) is the witness to the recovery. He also proved that the
accused had sold the iron bars and cement bags to him. Tilak Raj
(PW5) purchased the iron bars and cement bags from the accused.
Inder Singh (PW6) proved the entry in the Daily Diary. Brij
Bhushan (PW7) is the witness to recovery. Ram Dass (PW8) did
not support the prosecution’s case. Dhiraj Singh (PW9) conducted
the investigation.
5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section
313 of Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He
stated that the witnesses connived with each other. His house is
5
2025:HHC:13178
located towards a different side. No defence was adduced by the
accused.
6. Learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of the
prosecution’s witnesses corroborated each other. It was duly
proved on record that the informant had kept iron bars and
cement bags in the room taken on rent from Shiv Ram. The keys
were handed over to the accused, and the accused was asked to
guard the iron bars and cement bags. However, he sold them and
thereby committed a criminal breach of trust, hence, the learned
Trial Court convicted the accused of an offence punishable under
Section 406 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for 03 months, pay a fine of ₹1500/- and in default
of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15
days for the commission of aforesaid offence.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by
the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal which was
decided by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kullu (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court
concurred with the findings of the learned Trial Court that the
accused was entrusted with the keys of the room. He was asked to
6
2025:HHC:13178
guard the room. However, he sold the iron bars to various persons.
This amounted to a criminal breach of trust. Hence, the learned
Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the accused was dismissed.
8. Being aggrieved from the judgments and order passed
by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present
revision, asserting that the learned Courts below erred in
appreciating the evidence. The statements of the prosecution
witnesses were not in accordance with the story projected by the
complainant. Learned Trial Court ignored the cross-examination
of the prosecution witnesses. Parwati Devi (PW3) stated that the
accused and Sunder Singh used to load the iron bars. However, the
prosecution did not array Sunder Singh as an accused. There are
material discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses.
The benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act was not granted to
the accused. Therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be
allowed and the judgments and order passed by learned Courts
below be set aside.
7
2025:HHC:13178
9. I have heard Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
10. Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Courts below erred
in appreciating the evidence. There was insufficient evidence to
show the entrustment. There are various contradictions in the
prosecution’s story. The statement of eye-witness Parwati Devi
showed that iron bars and cement bags were removed by the
accused and Sunder Singh. However, Sunder Singh was not
arrayed as an accused. This made the prosecution’s case highly
suspect. The learned Trial Court did not extend the benefit of the
Probation of Offenders Act to the accused. He relied upon the
judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nasri Vs. State
of Haryana 2023: PHHC: 099408 in support of his submission.
11. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State, submitted that the prosecution witnesses
consistently supported the prosecution case. It was duly proved on
record that the iron bars and cement bags were kept in the room.
The key was handed over to the accused. The iron bars and the
8
2025:HHC:13178
cement bags were found missing. Parwati Devi saw the accused
and Sunder Singh taking them away. The circumstances clearly
proved the prosecution’s case. The benefit of the Probation of
Offenders Act could not be granted in the present case, as the
offence was committed after due deliberation. Hence, he prayed
that the present petition be dismissed.
12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
13. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204: (2022)
3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that the revisional court is
not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent defect,
errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed on page 207: –
“10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at
the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent
findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a
detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought
on record. The High Court in criminal revision against
conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like
the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision
is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure
Code (in short “CrPC“) vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or
himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the
regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The
object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an
9
2025:HHC:13178error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded
error which is to be determined on the merits of individual
cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same,
the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts
and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.”
14. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v.
Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, wherein it was
observed:
“13. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under
Section 397 Cr. P.C., which vests the court with the power to
call for and examine records of an inferior court, is for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity
of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept into
such proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the
judgment of this court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460, where the scope of Section 397
has been considered and succinctly explained as under:
“12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
power to call for and examine the records of an inferior
court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the
legality and regularity of any proceedings or order
made in a case. The object of this provision is to set
right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.
There has to be a well-founded error, and it may not be
appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders,
which, upon the face of it, bear a token of careful
consideration and appear to be in accordance with the
law. If one looks into the various judgments of this
Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be
invoked where the decisions under challenge are
grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the
provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no
evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
10
2025:HHC:13178discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These
are not exhaustive classes but are merely indicative.
Each case would have to be determined on its own
merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one
and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the
inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an
interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in
mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself
should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is
dealing with the question as to whether the charge has
been framed properly and in accordance with law in a
given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in the
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case
substantially falls within the categories aforestated.
Even framing of charge is a much-advanced stage in
the proceedings under the CrPC.”
15. The present revision has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
16. The informant Nokh Ram (PW1) stated that he had
engaged the accused as a Contractor to construct the water tank.
An agreement (Ex.PW1/A) was executed between the parties for
₹75,000/-. He paid ₹20,000/- to the accused. He handed over 10
quintals of iron bars and cement bags to the accused, which were
taken from the IPH Department. These were kept in the room
owned by Shiv Ram, and the key was handed over to the accused.
He went to the house of the accused and asked him about the
execution of the work. The accused revealed that the articles were
11
2025:HHC:13178
stolen. The informant asked the accused to show the iron bars and
cement bags, and the accused replied that he had forgotten the key
at home. He peeped into the store but could not find anything. He
made enquiries and Parwati Devi revealed that the accused and
Sunder Singh used to take the iron bars and cement bags during
the night. He reported the matter to the police. Tilak Raj had
purchased the iron bars from the accused. He stated in his cross-
examination that 10 quintals of iron bars and 50 cement bags were
kept in the store. The accused had not taken the iron bars and the
cement from the Department. He did not remember the date of
issuing cement and iron bars to him. The police seized only 6
quintals of iron bars and could not trace 4 quintals of iron bars.
The house of Sunder Singh and Parwati Devi is located at a
distance of 30-40 meters from the store. The police visited the
spot on 2-3 occasions. The police seized the lock and the key. No
money was paid to the accused for guarding the cement and the
iron bars because the contract was executed with him. He denied
that iron bars and cement bags were not handed over to the
accused, and a false case was made against him.
17. Shiv Ram (PW2) supported his version. He stated that
he had rented a room to Nokh Ram, Contractor, @ ₹500/- per
12
2025:HHC:13178
month. Iron bars and cement bags were kept in the room. The
accused was kept as a guard to look after the iron bars and cement
bags. The iron bars and cement bags were stolen. He did not know
who had stolen the articles because he was in the hospital. He was
permitted to be cross-examined. He stated that he was told by his
daughter-in-law about the theft. He denied the previous
statement recorded by the police. He stated in his cross-
examination by learned counsel for the defence that his room is
located at a distance of 2-3 furlongs from the store. He denied that
Parwati Devi was with him to take care of him. He denied that the
store used to remain open.
18. The statement of this witness corroborates the
testimony of the informant regarding the renting of the room and
keeping the iron bars and cement bags in the room. The mere fact
that he has not deposed about the accused removing the iron bars
and cement bags from the room will not make the prosecution’s
case suspect because he has provided a valid explanation for the
same by saying that he was admitted to the hospital at the time of
the incident.
13
2025:HHC:13178
19. Parwati Devi (PW3) also supported the prosecution’s
version. She stated that Nokh Ram, the Contractor, had hired a
room in which iron bars and cement bags were kept. Sunder Singh
and Hukam Ram were kept as Guards. The key was handed over to
Hukam Ram. Nokh Ram made enquiries about the iron bars and
cement bags. She told him that iron bars and cement bags were
sold by the accused/Hukam Ram, who used to transport them in a
vehicle at night. She had seen the accused doing it twice. She
stated in her cross-examination that 2-4 persons used to visit the
store during the night. She got afraid and did not come out.
However, she heard the noises being created by the iron bars.
20. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this
witness to show that she is making a false statement. Nothing was
suggested to her that she had any motive to depose against the
accused. Therefore, learned Courts below had rightly relied upon
her testimony.
21. Raj Devender (PW4) stated that he and his brother were
sitting on the road. They were getting their house constructed.
Hukam Ram came to them and told them that he was a Contractor.
He had iron bars and cement bags. He told the accused that he did
14
2025:HHC:13178
not require cement bags but required iron bars. The accused
supplied 06 quintals of iron bars to him for ₹21,000/-. He handed
over ₹21,000/- to his younger brother, Tilak Raj, who went to
Badogi, from where the iron bars were brought. He was not aware
of the fact that the iron bars belonged to the State. He produced 6
quintals of iron bars, which were seized by the police. He stated in
his cross-examination that the iron bars were not weighed. The
matter was settled at ₹24,000/- out of which ₹21,000/- were paid
to the accused. No receipt was prepared. He handed over the
money to his younger brother, to whom the iron bars were
supplied by the accused. He denied that the accused had not sold
any iron bars to his younger brother. He denied that he was
making a false statement.
22. Tilak Raj (PW5) stated that he and his brother Raj
Devender were present at the construction site. The accused
revealed that he was constructing a tank. Some iron bars and
cement bags were left with him and he would sell them. Raj
Devender said that he did not require cement, and only required 6
quintals of iron bars. The matter was settled at ₹21,000/-. He
accompanied the accused to the spot. The accused loaded 6
bundles of iron bars into his jeep. He paid ₹21,000/- to the
15
2025:HHC:13178
accused. The store had iron bars and cement bags. The accused
accompanied him to his home and helped in the unloading of the
iron bars. He produced the iron bars before the police, and the
police seized them. He stated in his cross-examination that one
storey of the house was constructed. The house had 6 rooms. The
iron bars were transported in the vehicle bearing registration No.
HP34B-1863. There was one shed in which the material was kept.
The shed was owned by Shiv Chand, whose house is located at a
distance. He purchased the iron bars because the accused was
offering them cheaply. He denied that the accused had sold any
iron bars to him.
23. The statements of these two witnesses corroborate
each other. These are corroborated by the iron bars produced by
Tilak Raj. These testimonies duly prove that the accused had sold
iron bars to them for ₹21,000/-. The accused had not provided any
explanation of the sale. Hence, the learned Courts below were
justified in holding that the accused had sold iron bars to Raj
Devender (PW4).
24. ASI Brij Bhushan (PW7) witnessed the recovery of the
iron bars. He stated that iron bars were produced by Tilak Raj and
16
2025:HHC:13178
Raj Devender in his presence and in presence of Dharam Chand.
The police handed them over to the informant. He stated in his
cross-examination that no site plan of the place of recovery was
prepared. Iron bars were handed over to Nokh Ram. A house
consisting of 4-5 rooms was being constructed.
25. There is nothing in his cross-examination to show that
he is making a false statement. His testimony materially
corroborates the statements of Tilak Raj and Raj Devender
regarding the handing over of the iron bars to the police.
26. Thus, it was duly proved on record that the informant,
Nokh Ram, had kept the iron bars and the cement bags in the
room rented to him by Shiv Ram (PW2). These were found
missing. Subsequently, Parwati Devi saw the accused transporting
the iron bars and cement bags in the vehicle during the night. The
accused had sold the iron bars to Raj Devender (PW4) and Tilak
Raj (PW5). The accused did not provide any explanation regarding
the sale made by him. Therefore, the learned Courts below had
rightly drawn an inference that he had sold the iron bars entrusted
to him by the informant.
17
2025:HHC:13178
27. It was submitted that the remaining iron bars and
cement bags were not recovered, and this made the prosecution’s
case suspect. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Karanvir,
(2006) 5 SCC 381: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 460: 2006 SCC OnLine SC
579 that the prosecution has to prove the entrustment and not the
manner of misappropriation. It was observed at page 385:
10. Mrs K. Sarada Devi learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent would submit that no material was
brought on record by the prosecution to show as to how the
respondent had utilised the amount. In our opinion, the
same was not necessary. In view of the admitted fact, we are
of the opinion that it was for the respondent himself to
prove the defence raised by him that the entire amount had
not been paid to him by the complainant. The learned Judge
had rejected the said defence.
11. The actual manner of misappropriation, it is well settled,
is not required to be proved by the prosecution. Once
entrustment is proved, it was for the accused to prove as to
how the property entrusted to him was dealt with in view of
Section 405 of the IPC. If the respondent had failed to
produce any material for this purpose, the prosecution
should not suffer therefor.
28. This position was reiterated in the Mustafikhan Versus
State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 SCC 623 wherein it was held: –
9. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 409 IPC,
the prosecution is required to prove that (a) the accused, a
public servant, was entrusted with the property of which he
18
2025:HHC:13178has a duty bound to account for, (b) the accused had
misappropriated the property.
10. Where the entrustment is admitted by the accused, it is
for him to discharge the burden that the entrustment has
been carried out as accepted and the obligation has been
discharged.
11. The above position was reiterated in Jagat Narayan Jha v.
State of Bihar (1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 518).
12. It is not necessary or possible in every case to prove as to
in what precise manner the accused had dealt with or
appropriated the goods. In a case of criminal breach of
trust, the failure to account for the money proved to have
been received by the accused or giving a false account of its
use is generally considered to be a strong circumstance
against the accused. Although the onus lies on the
prosecution to prove the charge against the accused, yet
where the entrustment is proved or admitted it would be
difficult for the prosecution to prove the actual mode and
manner of misappropriation and in such a case the
prosecution would have to rely largely on the truth or falsity
of the explanation given by the accused. In the instant case,
there is no dispute about the entrustment.
29. In the present case, it was proved that the iron bars and
cement bags were entrusted to the accused, and they were found
missing, hence, the burden would shift upon the accused to prove
what happened to them. The accused did not provide any
explanation, and the learned Courts below had rightly held the
accused guilty of the criminal breach of trust.
30. It was submitted that the learned Courts below erred in
not extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the
19
2025:HHC:13178accused. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Nasri’s case (supra). This submission
cannot be accepted. Punjab and Haryana High Court itself held in
Lilu Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1998 SCC OnLine P&H 1255 that the
benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be granted to a
person convicted of the criminal breach of trust. It was observed:
“6. Faced with this position, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the alleged embezzlement took
place in the year 1983. A case was registered against the
petitioner in the year 1984. He faced the ordeal of
investigation for about three years. He was challenged in
the year 1987. He remained on trial before the Magistrate
for ten years. The Magistrate eventually convicted him and
sentenced him. He went in appeal to the Court of Session.
He remained in appeal to the Court of Session for 1 1/4
years. He has, thus, suffered the vagaries of a criminal trial
for 14 years. Mental pain and agony to which the accused
was put in the wake of a grave charge under Section 409 IPC
has shaken him altogether. Right to speedy trial is the
fundamental right of the accused which flows from Article
21 of the Constitution. If the Court is not able to assure the
accused a speedy trial, the Court should show him some
consideration towards sentence. In support of this
submission, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my
attention to Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988
(2) RCR (Criminal) 184, Pardeep Kumar v. The State (U.T.
Chandigarh), 1994 Criminal Cases 58, Veer Singh
Chauhan v. The State (Delhi), 1994 (2) Chandigarh Criminal
Cases 253, Jamna Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995
Prevention of Adulteration Cases 78, Manjit Singh v. State of
Punjab, 1993 RCR (Criminal) 363 and Mahavir v. State of
Haryana, 1997 (3) RCR 649. In this case, the release of the
petitioner on probation of good conduct is not conducive to
20
2025:HHC:13178
justice. Expectations of the society from the courts will
stand shattered if an accused who is proved to have
embezzled panchayat funds to the tune of Rs. 13,766.92
Paise in the year 1984, when the value of money was quite
high, is released on probation of good conduct. Criminals
have certain rights while being dealt with by the courts. At
the same time, society has just expectations from the courts
that the sentence imposed upon them will be
commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the
sentence imposed will act as a deterrent to others against
the commission of crime. I am alive to the fact that in these
days when retributive theory is almost alien in the modern
penology where stress should be more on reformation and
reclamation of the offenders, I will strike a mean while
passing this sentence. While passing this sentence, I am not
inclined towards attaching any importance to the
retributive or deterrent aspect of the sentence, but will
focus my attention on the reformative aspect of the
sentence. I think, in this case, six months R.I and a fine of
Rs. 4000/- will adequately meet the ends of justice. It is
ordered accordingly. In default of payment of the fine,
further R.I. for one month.
31. A similar view was taken in Gulzar Singh v. State of
Haryana, 1999 SCC OnLine P&H 1292, wherein it was observed that:
“12. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that
there is no reason to tinker with the order of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, maintaining the
conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed. Faced
with this position, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner should have been released on
probation of good conduct, as if he were not released on
probation of good conduct, his family would be rendered
destitute and exposed to starvation. The accused cannot be
released on probation of good conduct as the amount
proved to have been embezzled by him runs into lakhs. The
accused has shown scant regard for probity and good
21
2025:HHC:13178conduct. Probity and good conduct are the pillars on which
the foundation of an edifice of trust rests. Keeping,
however, in view that the accused is a familied man and if
he is sentenced to a longer term of imprisonment, his
family will remain exposed to destitution and starvation for
a long period, I think some leniency should be shown to him
in the matter of sentence. So, the sentence imposed upon
him is reduced to RI for 2 years in both cases. The sentence
of fine shall remain intact in both cases. In default, he shall
undergo further RI for 6 months. Substantive sentences
passed in both these cases shall run concurrently with each
other.”
32. Therefore, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act
could not have been granted to the accused. The accused
committed the offence after due deliberation. He was entrusted
with the iron bars and cement bags. He sold iron bars and could
not account for the cement bags and the rest of the iron bars.
Granting the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to a person
guilty of committing the criminal breach of trust would encourage
people to misappropriate the property of other persons, and the
safety of the property entrusted to other persons cannot be
ensured. This would affect the trust upon which a civil society is
based. Therefore, the prayer of learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders
Act be granted to the accused is not acceptable.
22
2025:HHC:13178
33. Learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo
simple imprisonment for 3 months and pay a fine of ₹1500/-. This
sentence is not excessive. The accused had committed criminal
breach of trust of the articles worth ₹65,000/-. He was only asked
to pay ₹1500/-, which is nothing as compared to the amount
misappropriated by him. The sentence of 3 months can hardly be
said to be deterrent in nature. Therefore, no interference is
required with the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court.
34. No other point was urged.
35. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the
same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application(s),
if any.
36. Registry is directed to transmit the records of the
learned Courts below forthwith along with copy of judgment
passed by this Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
8th May, 2025
(Rupsi)
[ad_1]
Source link