State of H.P. vs Piar Chand

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 22.3.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dharamshala, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

The admitted facts of the case are that the accused was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Banuri in the year 1996-1997. It is also not disputed that on 6.5.1996, the Panchayat received a cash prize of Rs.6,000/- from the Department of Health. This amount was deposited in the account of the Panchayat in the State Bank of Patiala on 28.5.1996. Later the Pradhan allegedly withdrew an amount of Rs.5,600/-on 28.5.1996 itself and thereafter withdrew the balance amount of Rs.400/-on 19.6.1997 and the account was closed. According to the prosecution, this amount was deposited in the account of the Panchayat opened in the Post Office on 5.7.1997.

The second allegation against the accused is that an amount of Rs.6013/- was collected from the people belonging to the Panchayat for the issuance of ration cards on 1.3.1997, but this amount was deposited in the Post Office account of the Panchayat only on 5.7.1997. On these allegations, it is alleged that the accused who is a public servant had with dishonest intention misappropriated the amount and is guilty of temporary embezzlement.

There is no manner of doubt that the accused was a public servant. He has also not denied the receipt of amount concerned. His explanation is that he was using the amount for the work of Panchayat itself and since the Secretary at the relevant time was almost blind, the entries were not being properly made in the Cash Book. Earlier the Panchayat had an account in the State Bank of Patiala, but later on this account was closed on 19.5.1997 and thereafter the Panchayat opened an account in the Post Office on 5.7.1997. On the same day, a sum of Rs.12,000/- was deposited in the Post Office by the accused-Pradhan.

It may be true that the accused was guilty of keeping the amount with himself for some period and even if his explanation that he was using the amount for expenses of the Panchayat is not accepted, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused had converted or misappropriated the amount in question or that he had any dishonest intention to use the amount for his personal use. At best the accused may be guilty of procedural lapses inasmuch as he did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the same with himself but there is not even iota of evidence to show that he had dishonestly converted or used the amount for his personal use.

Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds discharged.