ZILE SINGH, EX-SARPANCH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing the FIR under Sections 406 and 409, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE allegations as per the FIR are that the petitioner, who was the Ex- Sarpanch of Village Kaul, Tehsil and District Kaithal, did not hand over the entire record to the new Sarpanch. It has further alleged that only the outer cover of the T.V. set, which belonged to the Gram Panchayat, has been recovered, whereas the main kit of the T.V. had been sold by the petitioner. The further allegation is that from the year 1986 to August 1988, the Gram Panchayat had received 1,57,000 bricks from the Block Officer under different schemes. However, as per the Stock Registrar, 2,57,000 bricks had been shown to have been consumed. Thus, it had been alleged that by showing more consumption of bricks, the petitioner had misappropriated the funds belonging to the Gram Panchayat. In the absence of the record of the Gram Panchayat, it was not possible to know the exact quantity of the bricks purchased from the Panchayat fund. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated a lot of money from the Panchayat funds.

(3.) IN the petition, the petitioner has alleged that he and Chaudhary Ishwar Singh are the political rivals and many cases are pending against each other. It has further been averred that in August 1988 the Panchayat elections were held in the State of Haryana. After the Panchayat elections, the petitioner handed over the entire record of the Gram Panchayat to its Secretary. The petitioner had received a black and white T.V. set from the former Sarpanch, which was very old and was not in working condition. It remained lying in the Panchayat Ghar as it was not in a condition to be repaired. Moreover, at the time of the filing of the nomination papers, the petitioner was issued 'No Due Certificate' and there was no objection from any quarter that the petitioner was having any record of movable property of the Gram Panchayat in his possession. It has been averred that had the petitioner been in possession of any record belonging to the Gram Panchayat, then it would have been a disqualification under Section 5(5)(p) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act. In the absence of any disqualification of the petitioner, it has to be presumed that the petitioner did not have any record belonging to the Gram Panchayat.