Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 988 (PNJ)

Ram Sarup v. State Of Haryana

2002-09-25

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2002
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment dated 14.7.1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the year 1976-77 when the petitioner who was Sarpanch of village Kinner was entrusted with Rs. 7,205.73P. Out of this amount, he returned a sum of Rs. 1,184.50P. to the PWD (B&R) and the balance amount of Rs. 6,980.50P was kept by the accused/petitioner. The petitioner did not show this amount in the account books of the Gram Panchayat. When the Block Development and Panchayat Officer detected this irregularity, the petitioner then showed the amount in the account books of the Gram Panchayat but did not deposit the same in the Bank. 3. The petitioner took plea before the Block Development & Panchayat Officer that he had spent this amount to the earth-work in the village. This plea was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate who enquired into the matter on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar. 4. A complaint was filed against the petitioner on the basis of which First Information Report No. 50 dated 17.3.1979 was registered against the petitioner for mis-appropriating the said amount. 5. Shri Mansa Ram, Block Development and Panchayat Officer appeared in the witness-box as PW2 and one Ved Pal as PW1. The learned Court held that as entrustment was proved, onus shifted to the accused/petitioner to prove his innocence. 6. The counsel for the State laid a lot of stress on the fact that a responsible person like the village Sarpanch had kept the amount with himself and inspite of Block Development & Panchayat Officer asking him to return the amount, he refused to do so, thus, showing his guilty mind. 7. The petitioner had brought into the witness-box Meet as DW 1, Inder Singh, as DW2, Chandgi as DW3 and Mewa as DW4. Documents Exs. D-1 and D-2 which are receipts have been proved by Meet DW1 and Mewa DW4. These documents clearly show that earth work was carried out in the village. 7. The petitioner had brought into the witness-box Meet as DW 1, Inder Singh, as DW2, Chandgi as DW3 and Mewa as DW4. Documents Exs. D-1 and D-2 which are receipts have been proved by Meet DW1 and Mewa DW4. These documents clearly show that earth work was carried out in the village. Further, the above-mentioned four witnesses of the petitioner who are independent and truthful have come forward to state that the work was carried out before them and in fact Meet DW1 and Mewa DW4 who own trucks stated that their trucks were hired to carry out earth work. A clear doubt is created in the mind of the Court. 8. In the light of above discussion, this Criminal Revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him.