SULAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SULAKHAN Singh, petitioner, was convicted by the trial Court on a charge for offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for the misappropriation of Rs. 3322-60 received by, him, from the Postal Department as rent of the building in the capacity of a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhamarsi Buland and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default thereof, to further suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 14-8-1985 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. Still being aggrieved against that order, Sulakhan Singh accused has filed this revision petition, inter alia, on the ground that as the rented building belongs to Bhamarsi Buland Cooperative Agricultural Service Society and not to the Panchayat, he cannot be said to have misappropriated the funds of the Panchayat as Sarpanch. It is also maintained that the petitioner had leased this property to the Telephone Exchange in his personal capacity and not as Sarpanch on behalf of the Gram Panchayat and that he used to receive the rent in his personal capacity.

(3.) NO doubt, there is no specific evidence on the file that the building in dispute belonged to the Gram Panchayat of village Bhamarsi Buland and the possibility cannot be ruled out that this building might be belonging to some Co-operative Society, yet all the same, the perusal of the lease deed Exhibit PW2/A leaves no doubt that Sulakhan Singh, petitioner, had purchased the stamp paper for executing the lease deed in favour of the Telephone Department by describing him as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Bhamarsi Buland. In the body of the lease deed which appears to be on already typed proforma, it is specifically mentioned that any taxes or local taxes regarding this building due from the Sarpanch of village Bhamarsi Buland shall be paid by the lessee and deducted from the rent of the building. On the top of the rent note, it is also mentioned that Sulakhan Singh, Sarpanch of the said village, has rented out this building. Simply because the percentage of the Sarpanch also figures therein, it cannot be said that he has rented out the building in his individual capacity or on behalf of the Co-operative Society. As a matter of fact, if actually the petitioner had rented out the building on behalf of the Co-operative Society, then he was bound to mention this fact in the lease deed.