BALWANT SINGH Vs. MEHAR SINGH RATHEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Balwant Singh was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Rajpur in Police Station Ganaur of Sonepat district for the period 1971 to 1983 without obtaining the due authority from Panchayat by means of its resolution, the petitioner stealthily received from S.D.O. Drainage through the learned District-Judge, Rohtak, cheque No. 285909/0O2860 dated 6th September, 1974 for Rs. 7739.25 as compensation of the Panchayat lands. Its income was not reflected in the Gram Panchayat cash book. Nearly seven months thereafter the petitioner quietly but fraudulently deposed this amount in the Panchayat account on 3rd April, 1975 but did not reflect it in the cash bock on income side. Panchayat auditor V.P. Bhardwaj while conducting audit of Panchayat account for the period May, 1974 to January, 1977 detected the aforesaid embezzlement and brought the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner and D.D. P.O. for suitable action against the petitioner.

(2.) IN this regard First Information Report No. 137 dated 23rd September, 1987 was registered against Puran Singh the then Secretary of the Panchayat in Police Station Ganaur Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat, acquitted the accused on 15th December, 1981 alleging that it was, in fact the petitioner and not the Gram Panchayat Secretary who had embezzled the amount. Successor Sarpanch in Shri Mehar Singh Rathee, Advocate, filed private complaint against the petitioner on 21 st September, 1994. Vide application Annexure P. 2 dated 20th August. 1986 permission of the court was asked for to appear himself as witness in the complaint and again on 12th November, 1988 application Annexure P. 3 was moved for being allowed to, lead additional evidence by production of relevant Panchayat records.

(3.) IN reply it was asserted that the petitioner could assail the summoning order in revision but could not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code after recording of precharge evidence against him; when the case is already fixed for arguments on the framing of charge. On merits it was asserted that the amount of compensation was withdrawn by the petitioner and that while acquitting Panchayat Secretary the Court had recorded certain remarks against the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent bad filed private complaint against the petitioner thereafter on 21st September, 1984. It was also asserted that the respondent complainant did not obtain any unnecessary adjournment, produced prima-facie pre-charge evidence expeditiously and that additional evidence now sought to be produced has a direct bearing on the decision of the case against the petitioner. The complaint Annexure P. 1. it was asserted, contains allegations quite distinct from the ones obtaining in the complaint quashed by this Court and the basic distinction between the two is that in the earlier one evidence had not been recorded while it has been duly recorded in this case. Hence the quashing petition merits dismissal.