STATE OF M P Vs. GULAB CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - In this State appeal, challenge is to the judgment of acquittal dated 30-4-1998 in Sessions Case No. 1116/84 passed by the learned Judicial magistrate, First Class, Sihora, Dist. Ja ba I pu r.

(2.) The accused-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused persons) stood charged for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in brief is that, the accused-Gulab Chand was the Sarpanch of Village Harsindhi. On 18 -1- 1983 an amount of Rs. 12,000/- was sanctioned by the State Government for putting Murram on the Dhoda Pola Road of the Gram Panchayat Pola. The first two instalments were disbursed in favour of the accused - Nonelal Patel. Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. However, the road in. question was not properly constructed and forged accounts were submitted by the concerned accused-persons. Without enquiring or verifying about the quality of work the amount in question was disbursed by the Block Development Officer. After proper verification it was found that only Rs. 2,828,94 was spent on the said road for putting MorramT and the balance amount was misappropriated. It is also alleged by the prosecution, that in respect of Village Harsindhi Rs. 10,000/- was sanctioned for repairs of the school building, Semariya by the accused-Dinesh Chand Mishra, Sub-Engineer. The estimated cost was Rs. 10,224,60 but he forged the said document to be of Rs. 20,000/and got it sanctioned from the S.D.O. Semariya. Out of the said amount second instalment of Rs. 10,000/- was released by RP. Mishra the concerned B.D.O. As far as Gram Panchayat Changawan is concerned, a road was to be constructed from Indrana Majhouli to Shahar Nadi which was 5 Kms. in length but it was shown as 7.5 Kms. As far as the said road is concerned, documents were forged and eventually the B.D.O., Sihora without supervising the work or evaluating the same released the amount in favour of the accused Kashi Prashad Dubey, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Charganwan. It is alleged by the prosecution that Rs. 20,000/- was sanctioned by the competent authority for construction of 2 Kms. road from Khirwa to Indrana reaching road of Gram Panchayat Indrana. Initially a document was prepared for sanction of Rs. 10,000/- but later on, it was enhanced to Rs. 20,000/ -. It is also alleged by the prosecution that neither it was instructed by the Sub-Engineer nor evaluation was made. However, the said construction work was estimated by the Gram Sewak Poda on the basis of which the concerned B.D.O. paid Rs. 20,000/- to the accused-Khalil Khan, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Indrana on his furnishing a forged muster roll. The aforesaid allegations were inquired by the Executive Engineer and J.P. Choubey, Assistant Development Commissioner, Jabalpur. The Commissioner Jabalpur found that there has been misappropriation of the funds and a report was submitted. Eventually the matter was handed over to the Police for registering the offences punishable under sections 420,406 and 468/34 of I.P.C. The plea of defence is one of the denial simpliciter. To establish the allegations the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. PW-l to PW-5 are the formal witnesses; PW-6 is Rajendera Prasad who had filled the muster roll PW-7 is Ganesh Prasad, a witness to the seizure; PW-8, Braj Pal Singh and PW-9, Sofique are the transporters, who were engaged in the work in question; PW-10, Mohammad Hanif is another transporter of the Morram, PW-11, S.K. Mishra is the investigating officer; PW 12 is RR Mishra who had submitted the charge sheet before the cOlppetent Court and PW-13 is C.R Chinchalakar who had submitted the initial report and had set the criminal law in motion. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence.

(3.) It is relevant to State here that during the pendency of the trial three accused persons, namely, Kashi Prasad, Shiv Gayatri and Ramesh Prakash expired.