Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts, in briefs, are that the appellant remained Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Pantehar, in Development Block, Baijnath, from 1960 to 1972. In that capacity, it is alleged, that the appellant used to handle the cash and records of the Panchayat and received and disbursed payment for and on behalf of the Panchayat. He also maintained accounts of the Panchayat. The prosecution case is that the appellant embezzled an amount of Rs. 436/- out of the total amount of Rs. 4000/- entrusted to him in relation to the construction of new Kuhal, Sunpur, in between the period commencing from October 28, 1965 to March 20, 1966, by forging muster-rolls, Cash Book, which were valuable security, and showed false payments to the labourers engaged in the construction of the said Kuhal. The appellant on the relevant date, time and place, fraudulently used aforesaid documents knowing fully well that they were forged by him, as genuine and, as such, being the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, so a public servant entrusted dominion over the property, i.e., Rs. 4000/- released to the said Panchayat by the Panchayat Samiti Officer, dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated an amount of Rs. 436/- out of it and converted the same to his, own use and thereby committed the offences indicated above.

5. The appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitted that he had remained President of the Gram Panchayat continuously from 1960 to 1972. He also admits the maintenance of the Panchayat accounts including muster-rolls, Cash Book and other documents as well as the receipt of Rs. 4000/ - in two instalments on 26-3-1965 and 21-4-1965 from Panchayat Samiti Officer vide receipts Ex. P.W. 1/A-58 and Ex. P.W.1/ A-59, respectively, in relation to the construction of new Kuhal, Sunpur, undertaken by the aforesaid Panchayat. He has also admitted that the said work was supervised by him by engaging labourers and that the account books", namely, muster-roll (Ex. P.1) and Cash Book (Ex.P.2) were also maintained by him. He also admitted that the payments to the labourers so engaged were disbursed by him from time to time and entries in the abovesaid muster-roll and Cash Book etc. were made by him in his own hand and that he had kept the entire account of the aforesaid Kuhal but he refutes that the said ' record had been forged or that such forged documents were used by him knowingly or intentionally to show the payments made to the labourers as genuine and further stated that he did not misappropriate the alleged amount of Rs. 4361- in his capacity as public servant which amount was actually paid to the labourers engaged for the work. Lastly, he states in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as under:

6. The prosecution has produced number of witnesses to prove this case. It is relevant to see as to what the material witnesses have deposed as to the allegations set-up by the prosecution.

7. Shri Tirlok Nath Mehta (P.W. 13) states that he worked as the Secretary of the Panchayat, Pantehar, with effect from October 1968 to January, 1976. He testifies the signatures of the appellant on receipt No. 36 (Ex. PW 1/A-58) and Cash Book (Ex. P. 2) at Ex. P.W. 1 / A-62 and all other related documents. He further states that he used to make entries in the Cash Book at the instance of the appellant. In cross-examination he states that none from the said village ever complained to him about the non-execution of the construction work undertaken by the Panchayat during the time of the appellant, that is, water spring, Kuhal or well.

10. Shri Johdu Ram (P.W. 6) has also worked as a. Mason at the Sunpur Kuhal. He states that he was not paid his wages for the said work and he never thumb marked any muster-rolls. In cross-examination he states that he did not remember in what year or month he had worked at the aforesaid Kuhal nor he could say in which season he had worked. He did not know if any receipt of any amount was forged by the appellant or any other person. He did not report the matter to any person with regard to non-payment of his wages. He denies the suggestion that he had received the wages for the work he had done for the said Kuhal. He states that he did not state to the police that the appellant had falsely shown a payment of Rs. 27/- to him in the muster-roll which was found mentioned in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.