Gurmail Singh vs Ujjagar Singh

J.B. Garg, J.

Gurmail Singh son of Teja Singh, resident of village Kuthala, Tehsil Dhuri,Distt. Sangrur, has come forward and moved this petition under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Dhuri for the offence under Section 403/406 of the Indian Penal Code on 1651991.

Briefly, the facts as alleged in the complaint are that Gurmail Singh is the President of Chahal Gram Udyog Samiti, Kuthala which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and that two cheques dated 5101988 and 301188 of Rs. 19,805/ and Rs. 8,397/ respectively, have not been deposit in the State Bank of Patiala, Malerkotla in which the society had been maintaining the account and thus there has been a misappropriation by the President of the Society.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copies of the statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant in the trial Court. PW6, Shri Mohinder Singh, Clerk has deposed that the Society had an account in Canara Bank as well and the Photo copies of Ex. PO/1 and PO/2 show that the vouchers of Rs. 19,805/ and 8,397/ were cleared in favour of the Society and remitted to the account of the aforesaid Society at Malerkotla. These amounts P3 were received against the bricks which were supplied by the Society to the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation, Barnala.

Probably, the complainant did not know that besides the State Bank of Patiala, the Society had also an account in Canara Bank which was opened on 2741988 and it is corroborated by PW2 Pawan Jindal, Clerk of the Canara Bank posted at Malerkotla. Thus these credit entries could not be characterised as false. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to State of UP through C.B.I. v. R.K. Srivastava and another, 1989(3) Crime 109, wherein it was held that when the required money was received by the State Bank of India, there was nothing to show any wrongful gain or wrongful loss. Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Criminal Law Journal 68 has also been referred to, where delay in depositing on the part of a Sarpanch of the village who had no dishonest intention did not mean misappropriation.

The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that once a summoning order has been passed by the trial Court, the interference is not called for, is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the presents case.

The conclusion is that the present petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 1651991 is hereby set aside and the complaint against the Sarpanch is quashed.