PADAM DEV Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Padam Dev has assailed his conviction and sentence for offences, under Sections 409, 420, 477A IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ordered by learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, vide judgment dated 22.2.2003, in the present appeal. Appellant has been sentenced as follows: Sr. No.OffenceSentence awarded (i)409 IPCRigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/ -; in default of payment of fine; rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months; (ii)420 IPCRigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/ -; in default of payment of fine; rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months; (iii)477A IPCRigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/ -; in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months; (iv)13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/ -; in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, which led to the trial of the Appellant alongwith two other persons, who have been acquitted by the same judgment, may be summed up thus. Appellant remained Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Chebri, from 1992 to 1995. In that capacity, he was required to get executed a number of developmental works, for which money used to be paid to him by the Government through Block Development Officer. When in the year 1996, new Pardhan, namely PW -6 Durga Dass took over charge from him, he found that funds released, at least in respect of eleven works of development, had been misappropriated either in full or in part. A complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) by the Panchayat alongwith resolution of the Panchayat. Copy of that complaint is Ext. PW1/A. The same is dated 2.7.1996. S.P. (Vigilance) sent the complaint to Director, Panchayati Raj, who deputed PW -1 Mehar Chand, Deputy Controller (Finance & Accounts) to enquire into the matter. He associated with him a Junior Engineer to evaluate the works executed during the tenure of the Appellant. After inspecting the spot and getting the works evaluated from a Junior Engineer, he submitted report Ext. PW1/C, per which, funds sanctioned for ten different works had been misappropriated. Total amount, as per report Ext. PW1/C, was Rs. 2,68,268/ -.

(3.) DURING the course of investigation, specimen writings and signatures of the Appellant were obtained and got compared with the papers against which he allegedly received the money from BDO office, as also the papers, prepared by him, to show the utilization of money. Handwriting Expert, who made comparison of the specimen writings/signatures with the questioned writings/signatures, opined that the questioned writings/signatures were in the hand of the Appellant. Other record, pertaining to the case, in the nature of muster -rolls, documents regarding entrustment of money to the Appellant, entries in the account books etc., was taken into possession.