DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is for quashing of an F.I.R. registered under sections 403/409, Indian Penal Code. Circumstances giving rise to this petition can be briefly summarized as follows :

(2.) A piece of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat was acquired for public purpose and in respect of that an amount of Rs. 1,71,750/- was received by way of compensation. Papers before me indicate that it was resolved by the Gram Panchayat that this amount should be utilized for construction of a school. The amount was then spent for construction of the school. However, Mohinder Singh and about five other persons from the said village made an application dated 4.10.1972 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore and complained that the said amount had been misappropriated. On getting that complaint an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the amount in question had been rightly utilized for the construction of the school and there was no misappropriation but the then Sarpanch (present petitioner) was responsible for excess expenditure to the tune of Rs. 13,050/-. It was stated that amount had been spent in excess because of the carelessness in the course of the construction of the school. It was, therefore, directed that the Sarpanch should be held responsible to that extent. It appears that meanwhile the said Sarpanch (the petitioner) was suspended from the post of Sarpanch on the allegations of excess expenditure of Rs. 13,050/-. The matter was further thrashed and considered by the Revenue Officers. Annexure P-3 dated 17.10.1974 indicates that the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore, then took up the issue regarding the reinstatement of said Sarpanch Dharam Singh. The order passed by him indicates that the inquiry conducted by the concerned officers showed that the Sarpanch had not embezzled the amount and was directed to deposit the excess expenditure or Rs. 13,000-00 and odd mentioned above which, allegedly, had been spent due to his carelessness. His order further indicates that such excess amount had not been assessed against the Sarpanch under section 105 of the Gram Panchayat Act. In this context, it may further be noted that in the present writ petition (para 5) it is stated that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer dropped the proceedings of recovery of Rs. 13,050/- when on further enquiry he arrived at the conclusion that the calculation of the said amount was not correct because the Public Works Department, who undertook the job of valuation had taken into consideration the control rate of the building material, whereas the Gram Panchayat had to purchase that material at the market rate. The action for recovery of the said amount was, therefore, dropped. It may be noted that in response to this averment, there is no denial in the reply filed by the State. The only reply in that respect was that the Auditory had observed that Rs. 1,71,750/- which was received as compensation has not been shown in the Account Books of the Panchayat and, therefore, to that extent the said amount has remained unaccounted.