Judgment: This appeal is from the judgment of the Additional Munsif-cum-First Class Magistrate, Guntur given on 10th September, 1965 whereby he acquitted the accused and dismissed the complaint filed by the Sarpanch of Turakapalem. The necessary facts are that the complainant-appellant is the newly elected Sarpanch of Turakapalem Panchayat under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act 1964. He was elected on 29th May, 1964 and is holding office as Sarpanch from 1st July, 1964. The accused was the President of the Turakapalem Panchayat Board from 1959 to 1964. He ceased to function as such from 30th June, 1964. The accused handed over certain records to the complainant through R. Ranga Rao, the clerk of the accused, and one G. Narasayya. He did not however handover certain other documents which were with him. The complainant, therefore issued a registered notice on 8th September, 1964. It was however not served upon the accused. It was, therefore, alleged that the accused has committed an offence under section 221 (3) (a) and section 224 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Nine documents were listed in the complaint which, according to the complainant, were not handed over to him by the accused. The defence set up by the accused was that section 221 and section 224 of the Act are not applicable to his case. He cannot, therefore, be punished under those sections. He further contended that the prosecution is time-barred and, on merits, he said that he has delivered to the complainant all the records that he had with him. The complainant examined three witnesses on his behalf. The accused also examined two witnesses. Some documents were also filed. Upon this material, the learned Munsif-Magistrate posed three points for consideration as follows: “(1) Can the accused be prosecuted under the provisions of section 221 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act? (2) Is this prosecution in time ? (3) Did the accused handover all documents, etc., to the complainant and if not what are the documents, etc., that are yet to be delivered?” On Point No. 1, the learned Munsif-Magistrate was of the opinion that section 221 and section 224 are not applicable to the accused as he was “President” under the Old Act and not a Sarpanch under the New Act. He cannot, therefore, be prosecuted under section 221. He cannot, therefore, be prosecuted under section 221. On Point No. 2 he held that, as the prosecution is under the New Act, it is not time-barred. On Point No. 3, he found that there are some records belonging to Turakapalem Panchayat Board yet to be delivered by the accused to the new Sarpanch. In view of his finding however under Point No. 1, the accused was not convicted. In this appeal, I am called upon to determine first as to whether the accused, who was the President elected under the Old Act of 1950 and was continued under the New Act under the transitional provisions, can be prosecuted under section 221 for not handing over the nine records to the concerned Gram Panchayat. The predecessor of section 221 of the Act was section 116 (3) of the 1950 Act. While Turakapalem Panchayat was working with elected members and the accused as the President; the New Act of 1964 came into force on 17th January, 1964. Under section 236 of the Act, in regard to the first constitution of a Gram Panchayat for a village, or to the first reconstitution in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Gram Panch?yat in existence at the commencement thereof, and otherwise in first giving effect to the said provision, they shall be read subject to the rules in Schedule VI. Schedule VI defines ‘Panchayat’ to mean (i) ‘a panchayat constituted under the old Andhra Area Act’, that Act being the Andhra Pradesh Village Panchayat Act, 1950. A ‘Member’ is defined to mean ‘a member of a Panchayat constituted under the old Andhra Area Act and the ‘President’, as defined in clause (e) of section 1 of Schedule VI, is as follows: ‘President’ includes Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat and ‘Vice-President’ includes ‘Upa-Sarpanch’ of a Gram Panchayat. A ‘Member’ is defined to mean ‘a member of a Panchayat constituted under the old Andhra Area Act and the ‘President’, as defined in clause (e) of section 1 of Schedule VI, is as follows: ‘President’ includes Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat and ‘Vice-President’ includes ‘Upa-Sarpanch’ of a Gram Panchayat. Sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of the VIth Schedule is more relevant for the purpose of this enquiry which reads: “Every Panchayat in existence at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a Gram Panchayat constituted under this Act.” Rule 3 (1) reads: “Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the total number of members of a Panchayat fixed or deemed to have been fixed under the old Andhra Area Act or the old Telangana Area Act or the Municipal Act, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat as deemed to have been constituted under this Act by virtue of sub-rule (2) of rule 2 until the first reconstitution of the Gram Panchayat under this Act.” Rule 4 determines the term of office of existing Presidents, Vice-Presidents and members of the Gram Panchayat. They shall be deemed to have been continued by virtue of sub-rule (2) of rule 2. According to rule 4(1), the President, Vice-President and members of a Panchayat holding Office on the date of commencement of the Act shall, subject to the provisions of sections 18 and 20, continue to hold such office until the 1st July, 1964. A close and careful reading of these provisions would leave no one in doubt that the Gram Panchayats, which were in existence at the commencement of the 1964 Act were deemed to be constituted under the New Act of 1964. The President and members of the existing Gram Panchayat were given a further lease of life till the 1st July, .1964.. The old terminology of President and Vice-President was replaced by Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. Thus, the President of any Gram Panchayat who, after the New Act came into force, continued in office, would be called a Sarpanch and his term of office being till the 1st of July, 1964. He ceased to hold office from that day onwards as a Sarpanch of the continued Gram Panchayat by virtue of sub-rule (2) of rule 2. This is a deeming provision. He ceased to hold office from that day onwards as a Sarpanch of the continued Gram Panchayat by virtue of sub-rule (2) of rule 2. This is a deeming provision. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that on 30th June, 1964 all the Presidents of the Gram Panchayats, who were holding the Office as such at the commencement of the 1964 Act, became Sarpanch as thereof and that they ceased to hold office of Sarpanch from 30th June, 1964. Thus, the Gram Panchayats and the President and the members working in that body continued to work after 17th January, 1964 under the 1964 Act. When the President or Sarpanch ceased to hold the Office, he is required under the provisions of the Act to handover the entire records to his successor and, if he fails to do that he is guilty of an offence punishable under section 221 of the 1964-Act. Viewed in this background it would be plain that the accused who was the President of the Turakapalem Gram Panchayat on 17th January, 1964 at the commencement of the Act, became a Sarpanch. Turakapalem Panchayat be coming a Gram Panchayat under the New Act. His term of office was statutorily to expire on 30th June, 1964. When his term of office came to an end, he was working as Sarpanch under the New Act. He was, therefore, bound to hand over the records of the Gram Panchayat to his successor, the. complainant. I do not, therefore agree with the opinion of the learned Magistrate that the accused was the President under the Old Act and he cannot be prosecuted under section 221 of the New Act. The next question is whether the complaint was time-barred. It is not disputed that, if the case comes within the provisions of the New Act, then under section 140 of the Act the complaint can be filed within twelve months from the date of the offence. That the complaint is filed within that time is admitted. No question of limitation therefore, arises in this case. The next important question is whether the accused has not handed over to the complainant the nine documents mentioned in the complaint. Although the learned Magistrate has dealt with this question I am not satisfied with the way in which the whole question was disposed of. No question of limitation therefore, arises in this case. The next important question is whether the accused has not handed over to the complainant the nine documents mentioned in the complaint. Although the learned Magistrate has dealt with this question I am not satisfied with the way in which the whole question was disposed of. Since the Magistrate was of the opinion that the accused cannot be held guilty of an offence under section 221, his opinion on Point No. 3 seems to have been coloured. It is necessary to dispassionately consider that question on the available evidence. It must be remembered in this connection that the onus to prove that the accused has not handed over some records or properties belonging to the Gram Panchayat lies upon the complainant. It is not a matter which can be inferred or regarding which some presumptions can be drawn. It has got to be established like any other offences by cogent and satisfactory evidence. The learned Magistrate was wrong in relying upon presumption and inferences and in placing the burden on the accused. For the reasons I have given supra, I would allow the appeal set aside the judgment of the Court below and remit the case to it with a direction that it shall consider the evidence on record and give a finding in regard to the question whether the accused is in possession of these nine documents belonging to the Gram Panchayat and that he has not handed them over in spite of notice given to him. It is not seriously disputed that the accused is not guilty of an offence under section 224 of the Gram Panchayat Act. The enquiry therefore, will be directed only in regard to an offence alleged to have been committed by the accused under section 221 of the Act. G.S.M. ----- Appeal allowed and remanded.