VAGHAJIBHAI RAMABHAI PANDYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Special Judge, at Palanpur passed in Special Case No. 4/81 The appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 5(1)(2) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Appellant-accused was a sarpanch of village Raner Ta. Kan rej between 17.6.1976 and 25.1.1977. It was alleged that during that particular period he had misappropriated Rs. 8862-35 ps. belonging to the Panchayat. The defence of the accused was that he was not staying at Rander and. it was the Talati, who was writing the books of accounts and as there was a dispute between the Talati and the Sarpanch, that is the present accused, the Talati had prepared wrong books of accounts. The cash was already handed over to the Talati and the Talati has concocted a false case against the accused.

(2.) On recording the evidence, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that while the prosecution failed to prove rest of the items it was established that one amount of Rs. 600/- and another amount of Rs. 160/-which were received by the Sarpanch by en-cashing the cheques were not properly explained. They were not credited to the ledger and hence the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence. He, therefore, sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of Rs. 1500/- on each count. In default he imposed simple imprisonment for three months on each count. That order is being challenged in the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Majumdar, the learned Advocate took us through the evidence as well as the material portion of the judgment and he specifically relied upon the observation made by the learned Judge in para 12 of his judgment. The learned Judge has discarded the prosecution evidence on all but he has only held the appellant guilty for he having en-cashed the cheques amounting to Rs. 760/-and then not having credited the same to the ledger of the Panchayat. However, some of the observations made by the learned Judge in the said paragraph itself prod us to conclude that even on this particular score the explanation of the appellant was quite convincing and plausible. Books of accounts which are produced at mark 10/2 are not certified by the Sarpanch and for that Mr. Bhojak the officer of the Cooperative department also has deposed. It was the consistent say of the appellant that these books of accounts were not genuine books of accounts but concocted books of accounts by the Talati.