Jan Mohamad vs The State Of Haryana

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 Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA

3. Few facts need mention hereinbelow for the 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