MOOL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against a decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Gangapur confirming on appeal the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under sec. 409 of the I. P. C. He has been sentenced under that section to rigorous imprisonment for two years in addition to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE facts are that the petitioner happened to be the Sarpanch of, a village Panchayat called Lahehora which includes within its ambit the villages of Bajna Khurd, Gaddipura and Bahadurpur. In his capacity of Sarpanch, the petitioner received certain sums of money for construction of wells and other development work in these villages. He received Rs. 2666 - on 8th January, 1954 as an advance for each of the villages Bahadurpur and Gaddipur equally and another sum of Rs. 1333/- on 23. 2. 1954 for village Baina Khurd. No amount was disbursed on account of the money held by the petitioner for villages Gaddipur and Bajna Khurd on any project whatsoever; but he admittedly spent a large part of the amount which he held on account of village Bahadurpur, leaving a balance of Rs. 193/- in his hands. He was served with a notice to render account and refund the Government money which was in his custody, but he did not comply with the notice. Lalsingh, Panchayat Inspector of the Circle was then deputed by the sub-divisional Magistrate, Hindaun on 18. 6. 1954 to check the accounts of the Panchayat in respect of the amounts advanced to the petitioner Mool Singh". It was alleged by the prosecution that Mool Singh conspired with this Inspector and obtained a receipt from him on 23. 6. 1954 showing payment of a sum of Rs. 2741/10/ -. THE matter was reported to the Police on 8. 3. 1955 and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against both the petitioner Mool Singh and Lal Singh on 21. 9. 1955. On trial Lal Singh was acquitted, but the petitioner was convicted by the trying Magistrate and when he appealed to the learned Sessions Judge, his conviction and sentence has been upheld by the order in question before me.