IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.315-MA of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.04.2009 State of Haryana Applicant Versus Sukhcharan Singh Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr.S.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate General Haryana for the applicant Mr.T.S.Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr.Jagjit Singh, Lalli, Advocate for the respondent ….. Jasbir Singh, J. State of Haryana has filed this application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 15.3.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa acquitting the respondent from the charges framed against him. Heard. Record perused. Criminal Misc. No.315-MA of 2008 2 An FIR under Section 409 IPC was recorded against the respondent-Sukhcharan Singh on 14.12.1995 in Police Station Sadar Dabwali. The process of criminal law was set in motion on receipt of a letter written by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Dabwali to the SHO concerned for recording an FIR against the respondent. It was allegation against the respondent that he has embezzled an amount of Rs.2,93,400/-, received by him, on leasing the Gram Panchayat’s land. On enquiry, above said fact was found to be correct and accordingly letter was written to register an FIR against the respondent-Sarpanch. Vide judgment and order dated 24.7.2004 and 26.7.2004 respectively, the respondent was convicted and sentenced for commission of an offence under Section 409 IPC and he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and further to compensate the Gram Panchayat to the extent of payment of Rs.two lacs. Respondent went in appeal, which was accepted by the appellate Court below vide judgment dated 15.3.2008. Hence, this application. After hearing counsel for the applicant, notice of motion was issued to the respondent. Record of the lower Court was also requisitioned. Arguments were heard on 20.2.2009. This Court was tentatively satisfied that it is a fit case in which leave to file an appeal could be granted. The appellate Court below has reversed the judgment merely on the basis of technicalities. Faced with the situation, the respondent-Sukhcharan Singh, who was present in Court, with a view to settle the equities, made an offer to make Criminal Misc. No.315-MA of 2008 3 payment of an amount of Rs.three lacs to the Gram Panchayat. On 20.2.2009, following order was passed by this Court:- “Respondent Sukhcharan Singh is present in Court. He states that without admitting his liability, to show his bona fide, he is ready to deposit an amount of Rs.three lacs in the Accounts of the Gram Panchayat. He prays that he may be granted some time to arrange that amount. On request adjourned to 15.4.2009. He is directed to bring Bank Draft of Rs.three lacs in the name of the Gram Panchayat on the date fixed. Directions are issued to Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Dabwali to ensure presence of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in Court on the date fixed. Registry is directed to intimate the order to the officer concerned.” Today, the respondent, the acting Sarpanch Harbans Singh and SEPO, Dabwali Ram Parkash are present in Court. Respondent –Sukhcharan Singh has handed over a bank draft of Rs.three lacs in the name of Sarpanch Gider Khera against a receipt. Photocopy of the draft and receipt in original have been taken on record. Acting Sarpanch Harbans Singh has given an undertaking that he will deposit that amount in the account(s) of the Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the respondent states that in view of the amount paid, application filed by the State be dismissed. Mr.S.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate General Haryana, appearing for the applicant-State has failed to show any serious opposition to Criminal Misc. No.315-MA of 2008 4 the prayer made. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat has also failed to show anything against the prayer made by the respondent. Though we are tentatively satisfied that it is a fit case in which leave to appeal could have been granted, yet, in view of the facts and circumstances, especially, a fact that Gram Panchayat has got an amount of Rs.three lacs, which can be spent on development of the village, we are not inclined to interfere at the instance of the applicant-State. Accordingly, this application fails and is dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 15.04.2009 (Jora Singh) gk Judge