Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1626 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9837 of 2018)
Jan Mohamad ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Haryana ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
Criminal Revision No.667 of 2009 whereby the High
Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the
appellant herein.
Signature Not Verified
3. Few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.12.14
16:08:58 IST
Reason:
disposal of this appeal.
1
4. The appellant was prosecuted and eventually
convicted for the offence punishable under Section
409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC”) and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine
of Rs. 15,000/ and in default thereof, to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant
filed appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge,
Gurgaon but it was dismissed. The appellant then
filed revision petition in the High Court, which was
also dismissed by the impugned order which gives
rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special
leave by the accused (convict) in this Court.
6. In short, the case of the prosecution was that
the Haryana Roadways had employed the appellant
in its services. He was working as a driver and was
posted, at the relevant time, in its SubDepot,
Ferozepur Jhirka.
2
7. In the year 1999, there was a charge against
the appellant of embezzling 85 liters of diesel, which
was actually meant for being filled in the passenger
bus but was not so filled in the bus by the
appellant.
8. This embezzlement was detected by the
officials, which led to filing of the charge sheet
against the appellant in the Criminal Court for
commission of offences punishable under Sections
420, 409 and 120B IPC. As mentioned above, the
appellant was convicted and was awarded sentence
accordingly.
9. During the pendency of trial and thereafter
conviction by the Trial Court and the High Court,
the appellant was in Jail from 24.11.1999 to
12.01.2000, from 24.02.2009 to 21.12.2009 and
then again from 16.07.2018 till date (see certificate
page 57 of SLP paper book).
3
10. It is not in dispute that the appellant is now in
his late sixties and no longer in service. He is also
ailing. It is also not in dispute that he was not
involved in any other criminal activity during his
entire service tenure except the case at hand which
relates to the year 1999 and now we are in 2018.
11. Keeping the aforementioned facts in mind
though we are inclined to uphold the appellant's
conviction finding no case to interfere in the same
being concurrent in nature but feel inclined to
interfere in the quantum of sentence awarded to the
appellant.
12. We accordingly consider it just and proper and
in the interest of justice to reduce the appellant's
jail sentence to "what the appellant has undergone
till date and enhance the fine amount from Rs.
15,000/ to Rs. 25,000/ ".
13. In other words, the appellant is now awarded
jail sentence of what he has undergone till date and
4
enhance fine amount from Rs.15,000/ to Rs.
25,000/.
14. In case, the appellant deposits an amount of
Rs.25,000/ after adjusting the fine amount he has
already paid then he is not required to undergo any
jail sentence.
15. Failure to deposit the fine amount of
Rs.25,000/ will result in appellant undergoing
further jail sentence of 3 months.
16. With this modification in the sentence and the
award of fine amount, the appeal is allowed in part
and the impugned order is modified to the extent
indicated above.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 14, 2018
5