Sulakhan Singh vs State of Punjab

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

Sulakhan Singh, petitioner, was convicted by the trial Court on a charge for offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for the misappropriation of Rs. 332260 received by, him, from the Postal Department as rent of the building in the capacity of a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhamarsi Buland and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default thereof, to further suffer one month''s rigorous imprisonment.

The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 1481985 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. Still being aggrieved against that order, Sulakhan Singh accused has filed this revision petition, inter alia, on the ground that as the rented building belongs to Bhamarsi Buland Cooperative Agricultural Service Society and not to the Panchayat, he cannot be said to have misappropriated the funds of the Panchayat as Sarpanch. It is also maintained that the petitioner had leased this property to the Telephone Exchange in his personal capacity and not as Sarpanch on behalf of the Gram Panchayat and that he used to receive the rent in his personal capacity.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

No doubt, there is no specific evidence on the file that the building in dispute belonged to the Gram Panchayat of village Bhamarsi Buland and the possibility cannot be ruled out that this building might be belonging to some Cooperative Society, yet all the same, the perusal of the lease deed Exhibit PW2/A leaves no doubt that Sulakhan Singh, petitioner, had purchased the stamp paper for executing the lease deed in favour of the Telephone Department by describing him as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Bhamarsi Buland. In the body of the lease deed which appears to be on already typed proforma, it is specifically mentioned that any taxes or local taxes regarding this building due from the Sarpanch of village Bhamarsi Buland shall be paid by the lessee and deducted from the rent of the building. On the top of the rent note, it is also mentioned that Sulakhan Singh, Sarpanch of the said village, has rented out this building. Simply because the percentage of the Sarpanch also figures therein, it cannot be said that he has rented out the building in his individual capacity or on behalf of the Cooperative Society. As a matter of fact, if actually the petitioner had rented out the building on behalf of the Cooperative Society, then he was bound to mention this fact in the lease deed.

The matter does not rest here as, the Telephone Department had sent the rent, vide money order receipts Ex. PI to P8 addressed to Sulakhan Singh as Sarpanch. Thus under these circumstances, even if the resolution of the Gram Panchayat Exhibit PW2/D dated 2931979 resolving to rent out the building to the Postal Department is not taken into consideration on the ground that it was not put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no escape but to conclude that the above referred rent was received by Sulakhan Singh accused in the capacity of a Sarpanch. He was thus bound to deposit this amount in the account of Gram Panchayat but he had failed to do so. Thus no case is made out to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two lower Courts in this regard.

Mr. R.S. Ghai, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, has not challenged the order of the lower Courts on any other ground.

It is not disputed that the petitioner had paid the above referred amount The order of this High Court dated September 3, 1985, also shows that the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail in this revision petitions as one Charan Singh had filed the affidavit that the embezzled amount has already been deposited. Thus this circumstance can be taken as mitigating circumstance in the matter of sentence. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, on 1481985 and he remained in custody till September 3, 1985, that is, for a period of about 20 days after the rejection of the appeal. He must have remained in custody for some time during the investigation of the case and after his conviction by the trial Court. Thus the period of detention already suffered by him is treated as adequate sentence. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/ or in default of payment thereof, one month''s rigorous imprisonment is, however, maintained.

The revision petition stands partly accepted to the extent referred to above.