CHANDGI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against judgment and order dated 10.1.1995 of Special Judge, Kaithal, whereby Chandgi Ram appellant had been convicted for offences under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 409 IPC and Khem Chand appellant had been convicted for offence under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month each under Sections 409 IPC and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, respectively.

(2.) PROSECUTION case against the appellants is that Chandgi Ram was Sarpanch of village Haripura. In May 1989 a dust storm came which uprooted about 30-35 trees. Those trees were sold by Chandgi Ram to Ram Chander for a sum of Rs. 11,000/- without any proper resolution of the Panchayat and without obtaining any sanction from the Forest Department. The amount was recovered by Chandgi Ram but he did not deposit the same in the Panchayat account. Then complaint was lodged against him. Matter was enquired into. It was found that Chandgi Ram had embezzled a sum of Rs. 11,000/- which he had received from Ram Chander. However, this amount was deposited by Chandgi Ram on 7.1.1991 in the Panchayat Account. Case was registered on the complaint of Prem Chand under Section 409 IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act after enquiry had been made against Chandgi Ram. After completion of investigation, challan was presented. Appellants were charged for the aforesaid offences. After trial, case was found to be proved. They were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) ON behalf of the State, it was argued that the amount was deposited only after the complaint had been made and enquiry held. It was also argued that receipt of Rs. 11,000/- was in the name of Khem Chand appellant and he had convicted and abetted the commission of offence by Chandgi Ram. It was also argued that, in fact, 30-35 trees which had fallen but only 15-16 trees were shown and the sale had been without sanction of the Government.