Criminal Misc.-M No. 18560 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.10.2011 (1) Criminal Misc.-M No. 18560 of 2011 (O&M) Raj Kaur .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent (2) Criminal Misc.-M No. 18561 of 2011 (O&M) Raj Kaur .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A. S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned two petitions, as the issues involved are common. While issuing notice of motion, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed: Criminal Misc.-M No. 18560 of 2011 [2] “Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is an illiterate lady and the amount alleged to have been embezzled by her in fact was embezzled by one Bhagirath, whom the petitioner had kept as a helper to do the miscellaneous work relating to the distribution of the old age pension. The moment this fact came to the notice of the petitioner, the alleged embezzled amount was deposited by the petitioner. In support of this contention, counsel relies upon the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa (Annexure P-2). He further contends that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation and cooperate with the same.” Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation. She is 60 years old illiterate lady. Once she has already deposited the amount allegedly embezzled by Bhagirath on account of fraudulent withdrawal of old age pension/handicapped pension, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. He referred to a communication dated 18.11.2010 by the Deputy Commissioner to the petitioner warning her to be careful in future. He further referred to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 126, where certain factors and parameters have been laid down for grant of anticipatory bail. Reference was made to paragraphs 122 and 123 of the aforesaid judgment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the allegations against the petitioner in the FIRs are serious. She may be claiming herself to be an illiterate lady, but the person, who had allegedly been kept by her as helper, is none else than her son, who is absconding. The petitioner is the direct beneficiary of the fraudulent withdrawal of pension. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that presently only two cases have come to light where the amount of old age pension and pension for handicapped persons has been withdrawn by the petitioner in connivance with her son despite the fact that Gram Panchayat was Criminal Misc.-M No. 18560 of 2011 [3] informed about the death of the persons who were earlier drawing the pension. Despite that intimation, the pension was withdrawn. The matter is still being investigated, as there may be other cases where money may have been withdrawn under similar circumstances. Son of the petitioner has not surrendered till date. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Sarpanch of the village. The Constitution of India has provided for transmission of powers at the grass root level by empowering these institutions. Substantial public money has been put at their disposal. The facts of the present case, as it exist today, are that the pension, which is meant to be distributed to handicapped or old age people as a part of government policy to give solace to them, has been embezzled. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is a Sarpanch of the village, being illiterate had put one person as helper, has no legs to stand, as that person is none else than her own son who is absconding. The fact that the persons, on whose behalf old age pension and handicapped pension have been withdrawn, had undisputedly expired. Still pension continued to be withdrawn against their names. Tax payers money was embezzled. Now a days, it is seen that every one is out to embezzle public money. There are instances where lacs/ crores of rupees have been embezzled. The petitioner may not be at that level, but whatever position she holds, she has been able to take a slice out of the cake. In my opinion, the parameters, which have been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre's case (supra) will not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present case, as it is a fit case in which a message is also required to be given to all similarly situated Panches or Sarpanches that they are required to perform their duties honestly. Illiteracy is no ground to escape from criminal liability. Before fighting elections and taking responsible positions in governance, a person is required to consider as to whether being illiterate he/she will be able to discharge his/her duties honestly. Power comes with responsibilities. One cannot be permitted to enjoy power but escape Criminal Misc.-M No. 18560 of 2011 [4] liabilities, pleading illiteracy. In the present case, the mere fact that the petitioner deposited the embezzled amount shows that presently she has admitted her guilt. Mere deposit of embezzled money does not absolve the petitioner of the crime she has committed. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.10.2011 mk