MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise out of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh dated 7.9.2002 confirming the order datd 13.11.2001 of the Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan taking cognizance against the petitioners for offence under section 193, 409, 420, 467, 471, 120B and 34 IPC. Petitioner Madan Lal is a former Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalsagar. Petitioner Banshi Das is the Clerk of the same Panchayat Samiti. In the third petition, petitioner Dinesh Nath is the former Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalsagar.

(2.) Briefly stated that facts of the case are that on Kanhaiya Lal submitted a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan stating inter alia that the Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalsagar (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) organised a tournament in the name of 'Swarn Jayanti Tournament' during the period 18th to 19th September, 1997. Banshi Das the clerk of the Samiti took an advance of Rs, 5,000/- on 17.9.1997 and Rs. 10,000/- on 18.9.1997 in total Rs. 15,000/- for arranging refreshment/food for the players. The financial sanction was granted by the Vikas Adhikari. The arrangement for tea/refreshment the second day was arranged by the Mewar Sugar Mills, Bhopalsagar. The amount withdrawn was not spent for food/refreshment on the players. After ten months the vouchers worth Rs. 15,000/- showing the expenditure on refreshment/food on 18.9.1997 during the tournament were submitted. The Vikas Adhikari approved the adjustment of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- The vouchers were fabricated by Banshi Das with a view to falsely adjust the amount withdrawn by him. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the investigation police verified the entire record and arrived at the conclusion that there was no case against the petitioners. Accordingly the police forwarded a negative police report. The report was objected to by the complainant Kanhaiya Lal by way of submitting a protest petition. The learned Magistrate rejected the final report forwarded by the police and took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under section 193, 420, 467, 471, 120B and 34 IPC. The petitioners challenged the said order of the learned Magistrate by way of separate revision applications. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 7.9.2002 rejected all the three revisions petitions.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. During the investigation the police recorded statements of number of witnesses. It is stated by the witnesses that refreshment and food was served by the Samiti on 18.9.1997. The parties had no grievance with respect to serving of the food/refreshment. Of course there was delay in submitting the vouchers. The Vikas Adhikari had sanctioned the amount as per the resolution of the Samiti. Thus, on the basis of material on record it cannot be said even prima facie that the allegations constitute an offence of cheating or forgery.