Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2015 DIGILAW 1136 (SC)

Prahlad Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2015-09-02

AMITAVA ROY, H.L.DATTU, V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2015
ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Revision No. 799 of 2003, dated 27.02.2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC"). 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant was the Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat, Chhittoraha. He was awarded funds amounting to Rs.20,742/- by the Block Development Officer, Sanwer for the execution of certain works in the village including excavation and repair of wells and repair of school building. A works contract was executed which stipulated that the work must be completed within a period of one year and that if any terms and conditions of the contract were violated, the amount awarded to the Sarpanch would be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. The appellant was unable to complete the work undertaken within the stipulated period. He neither sought extension of time for completion of the work, nor returned the funds awarded. Upon inspection by the Sub-Engineer, Sanwer, it was found that work valued at Rs.7,500/- only was completed. Thereafter a First Information Report was registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC. 3. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant appeared before the Trial Court and after both sides were heard, charges were framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, the case was committed to Trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses, including the Block Development Officer, Sanwer and the Sub-Engineer, Sanwer. The prosecution also submitted number of documents including the original works contract. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") and thereafter two witnesses were examined in defense evidence. 5. The prosecution also submitted number of documents including the original works contract. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") and thereafter two witnesses were examined in defense evidence. 5. The appellant would submit before the Trial Court that he had properly utilized funds for the work allotted and that the work undertaken was not properly valued by the Sub-Engineer. He would contend that the well was dug in rocky terrain and expenses were incurred on dynamite to break through the rocks and further that the cost of material and labour changes from time to time and therefore the Sub-Engineer could not have accurately estimated the cost of the work undertaken. 6. On the basis of the produced documents and the statements of the witnesses, the Trial Court found that the case of the prosecution was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record. Accordingly, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year, along with payment of fine of Rs.1,500/-, and in default to undergo imprisonment for two months. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. The Additional Sessions Judge held that the appeal was without merit and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant carried the matter in revision before the High Court. The High Court did not find any infirmity in the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below and dismissed the Criminal Revision. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant is before us in this appeal. 10. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis. 11. After going through the judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the Courts below and the evidence on record, we see no good reason to interfere with the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 12. 11. After going through the judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the Courts below and the evidence on record, we see no good reason to interfere with the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 12. The appellant is directed to be taken into custody to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Ordered accordingly.