A.S.BAINS, J. - (1.) KASHMIR Singh respondent, an Ex -Sarpanch of village Assal District Amritsar, was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti, vide his judgment dated 17th October, 1980. Hence this appeal against his acquittal by the State of Punjab.
(2.) THE respondent was charged by the Magistrate as follows : - "Firstly, during the year 1972, at Assal, you Kashmir Singh accused being a public servant entrusted with Rs. 7862/ - in which capacity committed criminal breach of trust in respect of that amount and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 409, IPC, and within my cognizance; Secondly, during the same year at the same place you, Kashmir Singh accused, forged receipt No. 36 dated 8.2.72, acknowledging the payment of Rs. 2000/ -, receipt No. 37 dated 13.2.72 acknowledging payment of Rs. 60/ -, receipt No. 38 dated 27.3.72, acknowledging the payment of Rs. 150/ -, receipt No. 41 dated nil acknowledging the payment of Rs. 348/ -, receipt No. 45 dated 26.4.72, acknowledging the payment of Rs. 2030/ -, receipt No. 44 dated 5.5.72 acknowledging the payment of Rs. 124/ -, receipt No. 46 dated 5.5.72 acknowledging the payment of Rs. 174/ -, receipt No. 48 dated nil, acknowledging the payment of Rs. 80/ -, and receipt No. 50 dated 5.5.72, acknowledging the payment of Rs. 3000/ - and you thereby committed the offence under Section 467, IPC, and within my cognizance. Thirdly, that during the said year and at the same place, you Kashmir Singh fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine certain documents, that is to say, No. 36 dt. 8.2.72 No. 37 dt. 13.2.72, 38 dt. 27.3.72, No. 41 dt. nil, 45 dt. 26.4.72, No. 44 dt. 5.5.72, No. 46 dt. 5.5.72, 47 dt. nil, No. 48 dt. nil and No. 50 dt. 5.5.72 which you knew or had reasons to believe at the time you used them to be forged documents and that you Kashmir Singh committed an offence under Section 471, IPC and within my cognizance".
(3.) IN order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses, namely, Mohinder Singh (P.W. 1), Ajit Singh (P.W. 2), Mukhtar Singh (P.W. 3), Rur Singh (P.W. 4), Sada Singh (P.W. 5), Malook Singh (P.W. 6), Chanchal Singh (P.W. 7), Jit Singh son of Jagat Singh (P.W. 8), Sukhdev Singh (P.W. 9), Geja Singh (P.W. 10), Mohan Singh (P.W. 11), Narinder Kumar (P.W. 12), Tilak Raj (P.W. 13), Mohinder Singh (P.W. 14), Gurdip Singh (P.W. 15), Mohan Lal (P.W. 16), Mukhtar Singh (P.W. 17), Banta Singh (P.W. 18), Harbans Singh (P.W. 19), Gurcharan Singh (P.W. 20), Gopal Singh (P.W. 21), Karam Singh (P.W. 22), Mangal Singh (P.W. 23), Inspector Vigilance Bureau Harbhajan Singh (P.W. 24), Sukhwinder Singh (P.W. 25), and Amarjit Singh (P.W. 26). The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused (respondent) on the following three grounds : - (i) that sanction of the State Government as envisaged under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the prosecution of the respondent was not obtained he being a public servant; (ii) that the entrustment and embezzlement of the amount of Rs. 7862/ - is not proved; and (iii) that the receipts were in fact not forged by respondent. ;