State of Punjab vs Madan Lal

S.D. Bajaj, J.

On the basis of memo No. 5918/80/M.C. dated 20th October, 1980 addressed by Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Rajpura, to the SHO, Rajpura, formal First Information Report No. 415 came to be recorded against accused Madan Lal therein at 11.05 A.M. on 10th November, 1980. The contents of the memo read :

"Shri Madan Lal son of Shri Krishan Lal r/o House No. 75 Block 11, Sham Nagar, Rajpura is posted as House'' Tax Clerk at Municipal Committee, Rajpura and now, he is under suspension. The said official has embezzled a sum of Rs. 5520.79 from the Funds at Municipal Committee Rajpura out of the record checked up till now. The detail thereof is as under :

The said official received a sum of Rs. 340.20 from Shri Kanwar Bhan son of Shri Jesa Ram N.C.S. No. 39 as House Tax for the year 197980 vide receipt No. 24/575 dated the 10th August, 1979. But on the official carbon copy be showed to have received 0.87 N.P. from Shri Dhani Ram r/o H. No. 2375 on account of copy fee and issued receipt on 11th Sept., 1979. Accordingly, he deposited a sum of Rs. 0.87 N. P. only in the funds of the Municipal Committee. Hence the said official embezzled a sum of Rs. 339.33 with mala fide intention against this receipt and get himself benefited by this amount.

The first copy of receipt No. G8, 1/635 for Rs. 243/ was issued in the name of Shri Manohar Lal son of Shri Jiwan Dass N.C.S. No. 65 in respect of house tax for the year 197980. But on the (official) carbon copy, he showed 0.87 N.P. to have received from Shri Dhanu Ram, House No. 2283 in respect of copy fee against receipt issued on 27th September, 1979. Hence he embezzled a sum of Rs. 242.13 with mala fide intention and got himself benefited by the said amount.

The first copy of receipt No. G8, 2/635 for sum of Rs. 54675 was issued in the name of Shri Dhasu Ram son of Shri Notan Dass, shop Nos. 3349 and 50 as House tax for the year 197980 on 26th September, 1979 whereas on the (official) carbon copy, he showed Rs.10/ to have received from Shri Tarlok Singh, House No. 2940 for composition fee and the penalty for getting deed registered late. The first copy was issued on 26th September, 1979. By doing this, the official concerned has embezzled of sum of Rs. 536.75 with mala fide intention and got himself benefited by this amount. Similarly, the first copy of receipt No. G8, 9/542 dated 18th August, 1979 for a sum of Rs. 4387.50 was issued by Shri Madan Lal to Navyug Theatre, Chandigarh road, Rajpura regarding house tax for the year 197980 But, on the carbon copy, he showed to have received a sum of Rs. 875/ only as part payment from the aforesaid party, in respect of house tax for the year 197980 and deposited a sum of Rs. 875/ in the funds of the Municipal Committee. By doing this, the official concerned has embezzled a sum of Rs. 3512.50 N.P. with mala fide intention and got himself benefited by this amount.

Receipt No. G8, 12/716 was issued in the name of Shri Narain Dass son of Shri Lekh Raj, House No. 3235, Sector 27D, Chandigarh for Rs. 500/ as part payment of house tax, on 9th November, 1979, whereas on the carbon copy he showed Rs. 10/ only to have received from Shri Goverdhan Dass, House No. 2643 as composition fee for getting the deed registered late. The receipt number is penned through. By doing this, the official concerned has embezzled a sum of Rs. 490/ with mala fide intention and got himself benefited by this amount. Shri Wazir Chand, House Tax Clerk issued first copy of receipt No. G8, 251716 for a sum of Rs. 400.95 N. P. to Lachman Dass Bhajan Dass and Shankar Dass Shop No. 152 and 167 as house tax for the year 197980 on l2th November, 1979. But on the carbon copy 0.87 N. P. are shown to have received from Shri Pannu Ram house No. 2283 resident of Rajpura town regarding copying fee. The receipt is in hand of Shri Madan Lal. In the first copy of the receipt, the date of issue is entered as November 12, 1979 while in the carbon copy, the date of issue is entered as January 12, 1979. The receipt number is penned through on the carbon copy. In this receipt also, it appears a hankypanky on the part of Shri Madan Lal clerk as there is an embezzlement of the amount as the carbon copy of receipt is in his hand. By doing so, the official concerned has embezzled a sum of Rs. 400.08 with mala fide intention and got himself benefited by this amount.

With in a few days of this embezzlement the office of the committee issued notices to the defaulters under sections 80(2) and 81 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. On having issued summons to the defaulters by the Court of Special Executive Magistrate (Deputy Director, Local Government), Patiala for taking action regarding recovery the aforesaid persons produced their respective receipts in original. The facts came to light after verification. Prior to it, Shri Madan Lal became absent from his duty since 7th August, 1980, as a result of which he was suspended from service on 20th August, 1980. He is still under suspension up till now. Thereafter, on coming to know about the said embezzlement, the matter was brought to the notice of the competent service authorities. According to Rule XVII18 of Punjab Account Code, 1930 vide memo No. 13(123)/4050 dated the 30th September, 1980 (copy attached for ready reference of examiner, Local Account Fund, Punjab at Chandigarh) the sanction has been accorded for getting the case registered with the Police. Now after only receipt of the said instructions few days were spent on the reexamination of the record. This information, is being sent to you at the earliest for taking necessary action.

On having examined the record, it is proved that Shri Madan Lal has committed an offence by tampering the record and making embezzlement of the Municipal Funds. It is also suspected that apart from the above mentioned receipts, he has also issued some more receipts of similar nature out of which the embezzlement of funds is suspected which could not come to our notice up till now. Necessary action will be taken on coming to know about the same. Uptill now Shri Madan Lal has embezzled a sum of Rs. 5520.79 N. P. in total as referred above.

It is, therefore, requested that case (FIR) for tampering the record and making embezzlement may be registered against Madan Lal, House Tax, Clerk and he may be prosecuted in a criminal case.

On being charged with the commission of offence under sections 409, 468, 477A and 418 of the Indian Penal Code accused Madan Lal pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated February 5, 1983 learned trial court acquitted the accused holding that the amount of Rs. 5,520.79 allegedly embezzled by the accused had not been proved to have been entrusted by the housetax payers to him nor was the entry in regard to its receipt in the municipal record proved to have been mutilated or tampered with by the accused. Even his appointment as Housetax Clerk with Municipal Committee, Rajpura, was held to have not been proved. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 646DBA of 1983 in this Court.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, AAG Punjab, for the appellant State, Shri Nand Lal, Advocate, for the respondent and have carefully perused the relevant record.

Regarding the appointment of Madan Lal accused as Housetax Clerk, learned trial court observed in para 10 of its impugned judgment, "Harinder Singh, Clerk Municipal Committee, Rajpura who has been examined as PW1 has very clearly stated that whosoever is to be appointed as a housetax clerk has to deposit a security to the tune of Rs. 250.00 and vide letter Ex. PL the accused was ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 250/ but there is no record with the Municipal Committee showing that he has ever deposited the requisite amount entitling him to work as House Tax Clerk. The prosecution for the reasons best known to it has not brought any evidence on the record to prove that the accused was appointed as House Tax Clerk under Rules. In the absence of such evidence, the accused who was not empowered to receive the housetax amount cannot be said to have received the same and the question of embezzlement as such disappears and the accused can be exonerated from the charge levelled against him qua embezzlement on this score alone."

In respect of alleged entrustment of Rs. 5520.79 by various housetax payers to the accused learned trial court observed in para 11 of its impugned judgment "The prosecution has examined Lachhman Das PW3 who has stated that a sum of Rs. (400.95) was deposited with Wazir Chand PW2 and receipt Ex. P1 was issued by him. In such a situation the accused cannot be said to have embezzled the amount received from Lachhman Dass by Wazir Chand and the statement of Wazir Chand that the amount was given to the accused for depositing would be of no avail, as no receipt is forthcoming which could have shown that this amount was ever handed over to the accused. Furthermore there are statements of Dasu Ram PW 6 who had stated that house tax to the tune of Rs. 364.75 was deposited with Madan Lal against receipt No. P. 13, that of Vidya Rattan PW6 who has stated that a sum of Rs. 583.20 vide receipt No. P. 14 was deposited with the accused and that of Khalinda Ram PW7 who has stated that vide receipt Ex. P. 10 a sum of Rs. 583.20 was deposited with the accused; that of Parkash Singh Suri PW10 who has stated that a sum of Rs. 43.87.50 was deposited with the accused through Bhagat Ram; that of Naranjan Dass PW11 who has stated that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 500.00 with the accused against receipt Ex. P. 19, that of Budh Ram PW12 who has stated that a sum of Rs. 972.00 was deposited with the accused. All the witnesses herein named above except Parkash Singh Suri have very categorically deposed that they did not know the accused personally and in the event of the fact that the accused is not known to them it cannot be said that they are true to their words that the housetax was ever deposited with the accused. Further more Budh Ram has not produced any receipt and his deposition that the amount was deposited with the accused cannot be given any weightage. The huge amount is stated to have been deposited on behalf of Navyug Cinema, Rajpura. Parkash Singh Suri PW 10 no doubt has stated that the said amount was deposited with the accused by Bhagat Ram, his clerk who has not been examined. As such it will be unsafe to say that the above said amount was ever deposited with the accused. For the reasons stated above, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove entrustment of amount alleged to have been embezzled by the accused. In the absence of any entrustment the question of embezzlement and misappropriation does not arise and the accused cannot be held guilty for the offences complained of."

Adverting to alleged manipulation or tampering with the relevantentries in the municipal housetax collection register by the accused, learned trial court reached the conclusion, "Shri M.N. Sharma the Document Expert who has compared the disputed signatures, writings and digits Ex. P. 11 to Ex. P.20 in Ex. P. 18 and has compared the same with the specimen writing and has deposed that the same are not in the handwriting of one and the same person and as such I conclude to hold that the prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused has forged the housetax record."

Appointment of the accused as Housetax Clerk in the Municipal Committee, Rajpura, having not been proved, there was no occasion for him. to collect payment of housetax amounting to Rs. 5520.79 from the assesses. Entrustment of the aforesaid amount to the accused is thus not proved. It was, therefore, unnecessary for the accused to tamper with or mutilate the municipal record of housetax collection. Moreover, Document Expert M.N. Sharma, negatives this assertion made against the accused. The finding of not guilty returned by the learned trial court in favour of the respondent accused is, therefore, affirmed. Appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of Madan Lal accused is thus holly without merit and is consequently dismissed.