IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.330 of 2003. Date of Decision: 4.8.2010. _______________________________________________ Sant Ram. ….Petitioner. Versus Sita Ram ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr.N.K.Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr. N.S.Chandel, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur dismissing his complaint under Sections 166 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the complainant is that one complaint titled Niku Ram Vs. Sant Ram was pending against the complainant in the Gram Panchayat at Luharwin, Bilaspur in which proceedings under Section 180 of the Indian Penal Code were initiated against the complainant by the Gram Panchayat. By an order dated 20th September, 1989, he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50/-. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 This order was challenged by him before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin and his appeal was accepted on 11th September, 1991 setting aside the order of the Gram Panchayat convicting him and sentencing to pay fine of Rs.50/-. It is alleged by the complainant that the copy of this judgment was sent to the Gram Panchayat by the Court which was received and kept in its record. The respondent, who was the President of the Gram Panchayat was having inimical relations with the complainant and his family members because of some election disputes etc. and he was responsible for initiation of proceedings for recovery of the fine amount of Rs.50/- for which a notice dated 8.8.1996 was served upon the appellant on 16.8.1997. On receipt of the recovery notice, he sent a reply to the respondent for dropping the proceedings and a personal request was also made to him on 25.8.1997, when the complainant also showed the order dated 11.9.1991 to the respondent. This infuriated the respondent who used disparaging words against the complainant and threw out the order. He screamed at the complainant “Kutta Mader Chod. I am President of Gram Panchayat Luharwin. I shall recover fine of Rs.50/- from you by executing the order dated 20.9.1989 against you at all costs. The order dated 11.9.1991 is not binding on me. You deposit this fine before this Gram Panchayat before dated 5.9.97 failing which, I shall ordered the same to be recovered from you as arrears of land revenue.” 3 After recording preliminary evidence, the respondent was summoned and notice of accusation for the offences was put to him to which he pleaded not guilty. The respondent was tried and acquitted by the learned Court. The court holds that from the evidence when the notice Ext. CW1/A was shown to the accused, he threw it on the ground in the presence of Santokha Ram, Rohli Ram, Kirpa Ram and Dandu Ram but it is not in his evidence as to whom the order was tendered to. He is not even aware about who was the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. He did not approach the police. No record from the Panchayat was proved on the record that a ‘Dharmashan’ took place on 25.8.1997. He then states that the order was handed over to the Chowkidar. Coming to the other aspect of the case, the court holds that in the preliminary evidence the complainant has examined CW2 Kirpa Ram and CW3 Vidya Sagar but these witnesses were not produced for cross-examination during trial and in these circumstances, there is not only a doubt but a grave doubt as to whether the incident, in fact, did take place or not. The notice has also not been proved on record and has only been placed as a mark. DW1 Rohali Ram also supports the case of the respondent that no occurrence took place on 25.8.1997. Further, DW2 Sh. Roop Singh, who was the Vice President of the Panchayat, says that the Chowkidar of the Panchayat had retired in the year 1995. 4 In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court dismissed the complaint holding that the notice has not been established on the record. Though, an attempt has been made to support the case of the petitioner by reference to the evidence of CW2 Kirpa Ram who is purported to have the witness of the entire matter but in his cross-examination, he could not remember the dates which were put to him and seems to have been tutored when he talks about the incident which occurred on 25.8.1997.In these circumstances, there is no doubt that this witness is procured. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. August 4,2010(R)