INDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners along with Shish Ram (since dead) were summoned by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat., vide his impugned order dated August 23, 1986, to face prosecution on a complaint under section 409, I.P.C. launched by the respondent, an Advocate by profession, who has been elected as Sarpanch of village Rajpur, Tehsil Sonepat, in the year 1983. The complaint was filed on September 21, 1983. The crux of it is that Balwant Singh petitioner who had been Sarpanch of the said Panchayat for two terms from 1971 to 1978 and then from 1978 to 1983, and the other two petitioners who were Panches with him during the first term, had committed a, number of irregularities and illegalities and thereby misappropriated certain material and money belonging to the Gram Panchayat fund. As per the details of these misappropriations in the complaint, the modus operandi of the accused was to purchase material such as bricks, iron and cement etc, from the Panchayat Fund for development work and not to use all such material therein. The remaining material that was not used in such work was misappropriated by them. Another method adopted by the accused was to mark bogus attendance of the workers in the muster rolls of the Panchayat. At the time of the payment they used the workers in accordance with their actual attendance only after obtaining their signatures for payment of the amount calculated on the entire attendance including the bogus ones. In some cases they used to, in collusion with the worker of their confidence, obtain their signatures/mark of thumb impressions on the muster rolls for the - payment without actually making any such payment to them. It appears from the Panchayat record that out of seven members of the Panchayat and a Sarpanch only accused No. 1, 2 and 3 were in collusion. Apart from accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and 3 also used to purchase material from the Panchayat Fund. The total of these embezzlements, according to Mr. Sahni, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, comes to Rs. 8543/- and all these embezzlements took place in the years 1972 to 1975.

(2.) IT is also mentioned in the complaint that on coming to know all these embezzlements by the complainant on his taking charge of the office of Sarpanch, he brought these misdeeds of the petitioners to the notice of one Mr. G. L. Malik, Inspector, State Vigilance Bureau, Sonepat, who after holding sonic sort of enquiry and examining the records of the Panchayat recommended to the higher authorities for the holding of a regular enquiry against the said accused. As a result of this report, Secretary of the said Vigilance Bureau is stated to have ordered Enquiry No. 13 of 1983. The further allegation made in the complaint is that Mr. G.L. Malik to whom this enquiry was entrusted had informed the complainant that instead of launching any prosecution against the accused, the State Vigilance Bureau had recommended to the Panchayat Department for the recovery of the amount found due or alleged to have been embezzled by the accused. This led to the filing of the present complaint. Before passing the impugned order summoning the petitioners as accused, statements of three witnesses including the complainant, but other than Mr. G.L. Malik, have only been recorded.

(3.) AS has been pointed out above, Mr. G. L. Malik has not come into the witness box to depose about the nature of the enquiry or the proceedings conducted by him into the matter nor in the absence of his statement is there any material as to how and what pressure had been exerted on him or any other officer of the State Vigilance Bureau to hush up the matter, or in other words, the action of the authorities concerned lacked bonafides in recommending to the Panchayats Departments for the recovery of the amount which may be found due or alleged to have been misappropriated by the accused as a result of the irregularities stated to have been committed by them during the performance of their duties of their elected offices, i.e., as Sarpanch and as Panches. Besides this it, is patently clear from the complaint itself that the authorities whose conduct and conclusion can safely be assumed to be impartial have not chosen to launch any prosecution against the petitioner and have rather proceeded to effect recoveries from the petitioners of the amounts which may be found due from them. Above all this the complaint does not contain any definite accusation about any particular amount that may have been misappropriated or embezzled by the petitioners. Only general sort of allegations have been made that they while in office have misconducted themselves by either causing loss to the Panchayat or not utilising the Panchayat Funds in proper or rational manner. I also form the impression that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to unnecessary harassment to the petitioners as they would be seriously handicapped in as much as they cannot reasonably be now supposed to avail of the evidence of facts and circumstances to establish the genuineness or bonafides of their conduct after more than a decade of the alleged irregularities committed by them. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that he could not initiate these proceedings earlier without having knowledge of the misdeeds of the petitioners, does not impress me for the simple reason that had he been so interested in the affairs of the Panchayat, he could legally and justifiably look into the records of the Panchayat which position his learned counsel accepts.