BACHCHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is granted.

(2.) The facts of the case, insofar as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows: The appellant was working as Gram Sachiv for eight Gram Panchayats in the State of Haryana. In the month of June, 1983, he was posted in Block Palwal. He collected a sum of Rs. 648/- from thirty five villagers towards the house tax and executed receipts for the same. On the ground that he did not remit the amount, prosecution was launched against him under Section 409, IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palwal, convicted him of the offence under Section 409, IPC and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated July 13, 1989, while confirming the conviction and fine imposed on him, reduced the imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The appellant, however, challenged the said order passed in appeal before the High Court by filing revision and contended that his advocate was not authorised to concede the conviction. The High Court allowed the revision and remanded the case to the Appellate Court for fresh disposal. In the Appellate Court, he filed additional evidence Exhibit D/3 and affidavits marked 'X' and 'Y' in support of his plea that he had paid the amount in question to the Sarpanch, Ramkishan. The Appellate Court disbelieved the additional evidence on the ground that Ramkishan was examined as PW-3 and he denied having received the said amount and observed that the additional evidence was tailored at the instance of the appellant to bolster up his evidence. On December 10, 1997, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate and that order was upheld by the High Court on the revision of the appellant on April 28, 1998. It is against that order of the High Court the appellant has come up in appeal by special leave.

(3.) Dr. Surat Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, endeavoured to argue the case on merits but in view of the limited notice issued, we asked him to confine his submissions to the question of the nature of offence committed by the appellant on the facts found by the High Court.