Crl. Rev. No. 1111 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * Crl. Rev. No. 1111 of 2004 Date of decision : May 5, 2010 * * * * * Mohinder Singh ............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...........Respondent * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. R.P Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate/Amicus Curiae. Mr. J.S Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. * * * * * JORA SINGH, J. Mohinder Singh son of Sant Singh preferred this revision to impugn the judgement dated 3.5.2004 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. By the said judgment, appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2001 in Crl. Rev. No. 1111 of 2004 [2] FIR No.106 dated 20.9.1995 registered under Sections 409 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Rajpura passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,Rajpura whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 25 days, was dismissed. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.6.1995, complaint was received by SP, Rajpura from the Panchayat Members and residents of Village Badoli Gujjara on the allegation that Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch with the connivance of officials of the Department has embezzled an amount of Rs. 5,64,100/-. Kikar trees standing in 200 bighas of shamlat land were auctioned for Rs.4,27,000/-. Grant to the tune of Rs.97,000/- was received from the Government for the construction of drains and streets. 200 bighas of shamlat land was let out for Rs.40,000/-. Total income of the Panchayat was Rs.5,64,100/- but this amount was neither deposited in the bank nor the same was spent for development purposes. Three instalments i.e of Rs.1,70,000 on 1.10.1993, of Rs.1,70,000/- on 2/3.12.93 and of Rs.1,50,000/- on 3.1.1994 were received but as per record, amount of Rs.4,27,000/- was not deposited in the bank. 150 litres of diesel was purchased vide receipt no. 21 dated 12.2.1994 for a sum of Rs.2740/-, whereas a common man used to purchase 200 litres of diesel for Rs.1370/-. Income of Rs.5775/- was earned by the Panchayat under a scheme on 5.2.1993 but payment was not shown in the records of the Panchayat nor deposited in the bank. Charges for advertisement to Crl. Rev. No. 1111 of 2004 [3] conduct auction of the kiker trees as per government rates ranges between Rs.330/- to Rs.500/- but Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch charged Rs.5000/- in this connection. Rs.4500/- was embezzled under this head. A brush of iron wire was purchased for Rs.10/- from the market, but appellant vide receipt no.10 of 22.1.1994 had shown to have purchased for Rs.105-80ps. Details of the expenses as shown by appellant under his signatures are shown illegally because excessive amount of Rs.74,928-22 paise was shown as balance but in fact this amount was not due. 200 bighas of land was let out for Rs.40,000/- without getting advertisement published in the newspaper or by getting munadi conducted in the village. After enquiry, FIR was registered against Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch and after the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Accused was charged under Section 409 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Evidence was led by the petitioner and after close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Allegation of the petitioner was that due to enmity in the village he was falsely implicated. He claimed to have constructed Dharamshala, Janj ghar, School boundary wall, phirni, drains and streets. Earlier complaint was filed to Director, Panchayats. An inquiry was held and the petitioner was found to be innocent. No dues certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. Crl. Rev. No. 1111 of 2004 [4] After going through the evidence on the file and hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the petitioner, trial Court opined that offence punishable under Section 409 IPC was committed and the petitioner was directed to undergo imprisonment as stated aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file. After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner, when failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court then requested that out of one year, the petitioner has already undergone more than two months and has deposited fine. He argued that as per story, temporary embezzlement was in the year 2004 and at that time, petitioner was about 40 years old. He is the first offender and illiterate and only male member in the family to earn bread and butter. He requested that lenient view be taken. Learned State counsel argued that after going through the evidence on the file, petitioner was rightly convicted and sentenced but admitted that petitioner is the first offender and there was a temporary embezzlement. Admittedly petitioner was serving as a Sarpanch and is illiterate. PW-1, Prithipal Singh, complainant and Ami Chand, PW-2 while appearing in the Court supported the prosecution story by saying that funds of the Gram Panchayat were embezzled by the petitioner with the connivance of the employees of the Department. Rajinder Kumar, J.E, Panchayati Raj as PW-4 proved the report of Crl. Rev. No. 1111 of 2004 [5] SDO. As per this report, material of Rs.2,53,404/- was found due and short. Mehar Inder Pal Singh, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Patiala proved the report dated 20.9.1995, Report is to the effect that government funds were embezzled by Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch. Evidence on the file shows that funds were allotted to the Panchayat. Petitioner was a Sarpanch and he was to utilise the funds for the development of the village by constructing drains, streets, Dharamshalas etc. but accounts were not being maintained by the petitioner regularly. There was temporary embezzlement. After the registration of FIR, No Dues Certificate was issued. After going through the evidence on the file, petitioner was rightly convicted so finding of the trial Court qua conviction is upheld. Petitioner was serving as Sarpanch in the year 1994 and while serving as Sarpanch, government funds were temporarily embezzled. Petitioner was about 40 years old and is the first offender. He was the only male member in the family to earn to maintain his family. Out of one year, the petitioner has already undergone about two months and 2 days. Petitioner is to become hard criminal if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Ends of justice would be fully met, if lenient view is taken. Keeping in view the fact that government funds were temporarily embezzled, in stead of directing the petitioner to under imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to already undergone ( 2 months and 2 days). Fine is ordered to be maintained. Crl. Rev. No. 1111 of 2004 [6] With this modification on the point of sentence, revision petition stands disposed of. May 5, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE