Jang Bahadur v. Dalbir Kaur & ORS

-1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 19, 2017 Jang Bahadur .....Applicant

Versus

Dalbir Kaur and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.Viney Pandey, Advocate for Mr.Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

CM-40767-2017 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 31 days in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 07.08.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby his complaint under Sections 406, 409 read with Section 120-B IPC against the Sarpanch and Panches of village Dheypur, Post Office Adda Kathar, District Jalandhar, as well as against the then BDPO, Adampur Doaba, alleging misappropriation of funds allocated to the Gram Panchayat for the

-2construction of Panchayat Ghar, has been dismissed. [2] The case of the complainant-applicant was that in July 2002, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution for the construction of second Panchayat Ghar over the land measuring 2 marlas, even though there was no need for such construction as there was enough space in the existing Panchayat Ghar for carrying out the affairs of the Gram Panchayat. It was further alleged that the funds were drawn by the accused from the account of the Gram Panchayat for raising 'A' Class construction but actually the Panchayat Ghar was constructed with 'C' Class construction. The building which has been brought into existence is not even 1/3rd of the worth of the expenditure shown to have been incurred for its construction and in this manner 2/3rd of the amount is said to have been misappropriated.

[3] Learned Judicial Magistrate considered the entire evidence led by the applicant but finding no substance in the allegations, the complaint has been dismissed. The reasons assigned by the learned Judicial Magistrate for discarding the applicant's version may be briefly noticed as follows:- (i) the star witness produced by the applicant was one Sarwan Singh who admitted in his cross-examination on 14.10.2014 that he had earlier filed a civil suit against the accused alleging that the land where Panchayat Ghar was constructed belonged to him. He had made complaints against the accused party and, thus, had an axe to grind; (ii) The applicant relied upon reports Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B prepared by Harminder Pal Singh, SDO, Phillaur. He examined one Manjit Singh as CW-4 to prove that report.

-3the SDO but he had never seen him signing and preparing the said report. Harminder Pal Singh-SDO was not produced as a witness. There was nothing on record to show that the report was ever accepted by the Competent authority. At best it was a statement of allegations which could not be substantiated;

(iii) Respondent No.1-the lady Sarpanch rather brought on record the Expenditure Register of the Panchayat which contained the details of the expenditure incurred on the construction of the Panchayat Ghar (Ex.DW4/B). She also brought on record the photocopies of the Panchayat fund allocated for the said project. She led enough evidence on record to infer that the Panchayat Ghar was constructed as per norms and no inferior material was used.

[4] In the light of the above reasons, we do not find any ground to grant leave.

[5] Dismissed.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE September 19, 2017 ( SUDHIR MITTAL ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No