AJIT SINGH EX-SARPANCH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJIT Singh has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint of the respondent -Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Bassi Pathana, under section 15(4) of the Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') filed against him on September 13, 1984 (Annexure P.2) as also the order dated September 13, 1984 of the Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P.1) summoning him in pursuance of the complaint.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner continued to hold the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Karimpura from 1972 to 1979. In the impugned complaint it was alleged by the respondent that after leaving the office of Sarpanch the petitioner did not hand over the Panchayat record which was in his possession and had therefore, committed an offence under section 15(4)of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, took cognizance of this complaint on September 13, 1984 and summoned the petitioner to face trial under the said provision of the Act.

(3.) SECTION 15 of the Act provides that a Sarpanch or a Panch immediately on the vacation of his office shall had over complete charge of the record of the Gram Panchayat which remained in his charge. Sub -section (4) of Section 15 of the Act lays down that whoever wilfully evades the handing over of such record will be punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. In the instant case the petitioner is alleged to have vacated the office of Sarpanch in 1979. It was incumbent upon him to hand over the panchayat record to the complainant immediately on the vacation of the office. It is, therefore, clear that according to the allegations in the impugned complaint the petitioner became liable to be punished under section 15(4) of the Act in 1979. In view of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure such a complaint could be filed within three years of the commission of the offence. Thereafter the complaint could not be taken cognizance of by any Court. The impugned complaint was filed on September 13, 1984 and it was, therefore, manifestly barred by limitation.