Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Mohinder Partap on 5 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)116PLR163
JUDGMENT Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This appeal and Criminal Appeal No. 283-DBA of 1989 have arisen out of same judgment of trial Court. Since common questions of fact are involved in both of them, the same are being disposed of by this judgment.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on the report of Gamdoor Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer which was forwarded with the endorsement of District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ferozepur and Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, a case Under Sections 409/467/468/471 I.P.C. was registered against the respondent and others. During investigation, it transpired that Mohinder Partap Sarpanch, respondent in this case, did not hand over Rs. 10,000/- to Mool Chand. The latter disclosed during investigation that proceedings of panchayat dated 17.6.1980 and 25.6.1980 were not conducted in his presence and his signatures on both the proceedings were forged one. He also disclosed that Mohinder Partap respondent did not hand over Rs. 10,000/- to him for the purchase of bricks. During investigation, it was further found that Mohinder Partap respondent was having Rs. 45,647.10p belonging to the Gram Panchayat as per cash book; that Nagin Chand, Lamberdar admitted before Gamdoor Singh that resolution dated 25.6.1980 was scribed by him at the instance of Mohinder Partap respondent; that on 20.8.1980, the respondent had Rs. 41,147.10 p with him and that the respondent at the instance of Sukhdev Singh, B.D.P.O. issued receipts for Rs. 4,500/-; that the disputed signatures of Mool Chand were sent to the Document Expert and that on receipt of report of Document Expert and that on receipt of report of Document Expert to the effect that his signatures were forged, criminal case Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
3. The Gram Panchayat of village passed a resolution that land belonging to it be sold to the persons who had illegally occupied the same. The price was fixed at Rs. 250/- per Maria and in this way the respondent received Rs. 4,500/- as sale price of the land sold to various persons. Out of this amount, the respondent deposited some amount in post office Abohar in the account of Gram Panchayat but later on withdrew the same. Thus, it was alleged that the respondent had mis-appropriated Rs. 45,647.07P.
4. The respondent was accordingly tried and - - acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka vide his judgment dated 30.7.1988.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Punjab has filed two appeals, as noticed above.
6. We have heard Mr. Randhir Singh, D.A.G. Punjab and counsel for the respondent and perused the entire record.
7. In such like cases, for securing conviction of accused persons, the prosecution is duty bound to prove entrustment of money to them. In this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove this essential ingredient of Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against the respondent are that he got some money belonging to the Gram Panchayat but did not deposit the same in the account of Gram panchayat of village Saidan Wali. By keeping the amount of Gram Panchayat, the respondent has not committed any criminal offence though he may have violated certain Rules framed under the Gram Panchayat Act. In this case, even Sukhdev Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, P.W.14, has categorically admitted that the Sarpanch can keep any amount in his hand if the panchayat work is going on. The prosecution has not produced any reliable evidence to show that at the relevant time, no work of Gram Panchayat was going on. Although it is alleged that the respondent had sold away certain plots to the villagers but no sale-deed has been placed on the record. The trial Court itself observed in the judgment that Om Parkash, P.W.4, has given statement to the effect that the respondent did not embezzle any amount of the Gram Panchayat.
8 And then in legal terminology, embezzlement means that money was never spent for any purpose for which same was shown in the books of account. The prosecution has not been able to establish on the record that any money was ever entrusted to the respondent for being used for any purpose.
9. Further, as observed by the trial court in the impugned judgment, the respondent has deposited the entire amount in the account of Gram Panchayat. This proves the bonafides of the respondent that he did not have any intention of mis-appropriating any amount.
10. The net result of above discussion is that the prosecution could not prove that any money was entrusted to the respondent or that he had embezzled that amount. Rather, it is the prosecution case itself that the respondent had deposited the entire amount in the account of the Gram Panchayat. Resultantly, there is no force in these appeals and the same are dismissed.