LILU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar dated 15.7.1998 whereby he has maintained the conviction and sentence of three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 4000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for four months recorded on Lilu Ram (petitioner) by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, vide order dated 19.2.1997 in case FIR No. 360 dated 24.9.1984 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Sadar Hisar.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that Lilu Ram was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Shikarpur. In his capacity as Sarpanch of that Gram Panchayat, he was entrusted with an amount of Rs. 13,766.92. He failed to account for this amount. He failed to deposit the said amount in the account of the Panchayat. He failed to hand over the said amount to his successor either. Case was registered against him on the complaint of Block Development and Panchayat Officer. After investigation, he was challaned. He pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him on 17.9.1987 by the learned Magistrate. On the conclusion of the trial learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar found the charge proved against him under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 19.2.1997. Vide order of the same date, she convicted him and sentenced him as indicated above.

(3.) RESOLUTION Ex.P-W.18/A dated 1.8.1983 shows that there was an amount of Rs. 13,766.92 with Lilu Ram, Sarpanch. Lilu Ram remained Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Shikarpur during the period 1971 to 1982. He handed over the charge to his successor Shri Bir Singh, Sarpanch. While handing over the charge, he did not hand over this amount to him nor did he account for this amount in any manner. He also did not deposit the amount in the Panchayat account. In Resolution Ex.PW.18/A, it was resolved by the Panchayat that Lilu Ram was liable to pay interest on this amount and the other amounts received by him as mentioned in the Resolution Ex. PWL-18/A. Shri H.L. Bhatia, BDPO, served notice upon Lilu Ram calling upon him to deposit the amounts. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was received by the accused-petitioner calling upon him to deposit the amount. Suffice it to say, it was for the petitioner to account for the amount within a reasonable time of its entrustment. If he failed to account for the amount within a reasonable time entrusted to him and is shown not to have spent the amount on the execution of any work of the Panchayat, he shall be rendering himself liable for criminal misappropriation of the funds of a public body like the Panchayat.