In addition to receipt DA, the accused have produced another receipt about the payment of Rs.
46,875 received.
Ram Kishan, Mussadi and the two accused then went to Cooperative Bank Kaithal.
Surat Singh was further charged for keeping in his possession the forged receipts for fraudulent and dishonest use of the same.
46,875 and that the said receipt before the date July 18, 1963.
No steps were, however, taken by Surat Singh accused to transfer the remaining amount.
1,68,844 represented the companypensation for the acquisition of shamlat land in village Ramgarh Ror.
6,000 on account of interest companyld number be paid in cash without sanction but he would transfer the amount in the name of Gram Panchyat Neemwala from the account of Gram Panchyat Seonsar by a book entry.
1,00,000 in the name of Ram Kishan as Sarpaanch of the new Panchyat.
Mohinder Singh told Ram Kishan that he need number worry.
This receipt admittedly bears the signatures of Ram Kishan in Landa character and also bears the seal of Gram Panchayat Neemwala.
46,875 from that bank after that amount had been transferred from the Reserve Bank of India New Delhi.
Surat Singh accused then went away, while Ram Kishan, Mussadi and Mohinder Singh went to the office of Mohinder Singh.
According to Surat singh, he withdrew on July 18, 1963 Rs.
After the.elections Ram Kishan as Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat Neemwala made a demand and for the custody of the Panchyat,record relating to the two villages Neemwala Land Ramgarh Ror and also asked for the payment of the amount standing in the account of village Ramgarh Ror.
46,875 by Surat Singh to Ram Kishan.
The trial Court, as mentioned earlier, accepted the prosecution allegations and companyvicted and sentenced he two accused as above.
was companystituted.
Mohinder Singh further promised to get the original receipt back from Surat Singh.
For villages Neemwala and Ramgarh Ror a new Gram, Panchyat known as Gram Panchyat Neemwala.
The same day, i. e. July 189 1963 Surat Singh withdrew the amount of Rs.
221 of 1970 while Surat Singh has filed criminal appeal No.
By special leave Mohinder Singh has filed criminal appeal No.
Ram Kishan and Mussadi then came back to the village.
A. on DU as well as the official receipt DA.
On the advice given by Mohinder Singh, Ram Kishan got passed resolution DB/1 by Gram, Panchyat Neemwala on May 14, 1963 whereby Rao Kishan was authorised on behalf of the Panchyat to receive the amount due from Gram Panchyat.
On appeal the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the decision of the trial companyrt.
The aforesaid amount was credited in the account of Surat Singh with the Co operative Bank Kaithal on July 18, 1963.
Surat Singh accused was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchyat.
46,875 were received by Ram Kishan PW from Surat Singh Sarpanch Seonsar.
Mohinder Singh denied the other allegations against him Mohinder Singh expressed ignorance about the withdrawal of money from the being by Surat Singh on July 18, 1963 Likewise the allegation that Rath Kishan and Mussadi had visited his office on 1 December 13, 1963 was denied by Mohinder Singh.
Ram Kishan then made a companyplaint to the District Magistrate Karnal on June 12, 1964 praying that a case might be registered against the accused under sections 120B, 409, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code.
Nuruddin Ahmad and U.P. Singh, for the appellants N. Goswamy and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
374 and 76 of 1970.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 8th October, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeals Nos.
Surat Singh accused, however, put off Ram Kishan PW.
50,000 deposited in the Reserve Bank of India New Delhi Rs.
Ram Kishan was then a member of the Gram Panchyat and he represented village Ramgarh Ror.
50,000 and he paid the same amount to Ram Kishan PW as per receipt Ex.
This receipt is on companyy DB of resolution DB/1 which had been passed by Gram Panchayat Neemwala on May 14,1963.
The shamlat land of these villages had already vested in the Panchyat under the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act.
Mohinder Singh also wrote the word Cancelled on the companynterfoil PI.
The clerk on duty in the bank told Mohinder Singh that the sum of Rs.
Surat Singh denied having gone to the office of Mohinder Sin on December 13, 1963.The allegation that the receipts were fabricated or that any amount had been misappropriated by Surat Singh were denied by him.
Some days later a fresh election was held and Mehar Chand became the Sarpanch of Neemwala Panchyat.
The prosecution case is that prior to the year 1961, four villages, namely, Seonsar, Hailwa, Neemwala and Ramgarh Ror had a companymon Gram Panchyat known as Gram Panchyat Seonsar.
Ram Kishan was, however, told by Mohinder Singh that the receipt was with Surat Singh.
46,875 should be paid to the Gram Panchayat Neemwala.
Mussadi PW was then sent to call Surat Singh but the latter declined to companye.
3,51,844.
As Surat Singh did number number render accounts, Ram Kishan PW companysulted Mohinder Singh Advocate accused and on the latters advice filed a suit for rendition of the accounts against Surat Singh in the Court of Sub Judge at Kaithal.
46,875 while that framed against Mohinder Singh was that he had abetted the companymission of the above offence.
Ram Kishan thereupon made an application to the higher authorities.
Both the accused were, present in the office.
46,875.dated July 18, 1963 had been obtained from him would have kept quiet for a number of months thereafter.
221 of 1970 A S 47 of 1971.
18,800 deposited in the Central Co operative Bank Kaithal The Gram Panchyat of Seonsar companytinued to function up to the beginning of 1961.
46,875 which was lying in deposit with the Reserve Bank of India in the account of Gram Panchyat Seonsar was sent on July 12, 1963 by bank draft to Surat Singh.
On the acquisition of those lands, the Government paid companypensation amounting to Rs.
The accused have brought on the record receipt DA.,
In this new arrangement the Gram Panchyat Seonsar functioned only for two villages, namely, Seonsar and Hailwa.
of village 844 had been received as companypensation for acquistion of the land age Ramgarh Ror.
it was number disputed by Surat Singh that the Gram Panchyat Seonsar had been split into two Panchyats.
The companypensation amount of Rs.
At the office Ram Kishan demanded back the receipt from Mohinder Singh as the amount had number been paid in cash.
Chaudhry Daryao Singh is proved by the testimony of Kitab Singh PW 4 , who, was incharge of the Co operative Bank, as well as by that of Nihal Singh DW 1 , who is a first companysin of Daryao Singh deceased and is familiar with his handwriting.
At the trial Surat Singh accused, admitted that a sum of Rs.
According further to the prosecution case, about a month after the fresh elections Ram Kishan learnt from an overseer of Block Samiti Chika that Surat Singh had withdrawn the amount of Rs.
Mohinder Singh accused was also engaged by Ram Kishan PW a,, his companynsel in that case.
During the investigation of the case it transpired that an amount of Rs.
Mohinder Singh accused admitted having filed a suit as companynsel of Gram Panchyat Neemwala against Surat Singh.
In the beginning of 1961 the Government split the area of Gram Panchyat Seonsar into two separate areas and companystituted two Gram Panchyats.
Mohinder Singh also denied that the word Cancelled on companynterfoil PI of receipt DA was in his hand.
This judgment would dispose of both the appeals.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
A case was thereafter registered against the accused.
Surat Singh in his capacity as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchyat received those amounts and the companypensation for each of the villages Was kept distinct and separate, so that the benefit of the money should accrue only to the respective villages.
50,000 from the bank and was giving out that he had paid that money to Ram Kishan and got a receipt from Ram Kishan for that amount.
The receipt is dated July 18, 1963 and according to it, Rs.
On December 13,1963 at about 10 a.m. , it is stated , Ram Kishan PW accompanied by Mussadi went to the Office of Mohinder Singh accused with the official receipt book and seal of Neemwala Panchayat.
25,000 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of eight months on the first companynt and to undergo rigorous imprisonment or a period of one year on the second companynt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. Surat Singh and Mohinder Singh Advocate were tried in the companyrt of Additional Sessions Judge Karnal for various offences.
Ram Kishan at first did number attach much importance to that talk but when the rumour persisted, Ram Kishan learnt on enquiry that the amount had already been withdrawn by Surat Singh accused some months earlier.
47 of 1971.
After the formation of the new Panchyat Ram Kishan PW was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat Neemwala, while Surat Singh companytinued, as Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat Seonsar.
50,000 had been deposited n the Reserve Bank of India.
1,00,000 deposited in the Kaithal Mandi Post Office Rs.
Each of the other three villages was also represented by a Panch.
6,000 in this way transferred to the account of Gram Panchyat Neemwala.
Some amounts out of the companypensation deposited were withdrawn for being spent for those villages.
1,68,800 relating to Ramgarh Ror was invested as follows Rs.
46,875 found due on the basis of deposit certificate of the value of Rs.
Out of that amount, Rs.
Writing marked A was also made on companyy DR of resolution DB/1.
In 1957 58 the Government acquired large areas of shamlat land of villages Ramgarh Ror, Seonsar and Hailwa for the purpose of establishing a big forest plantation.
The substantive sentences of imprisonment in the case of each of the two accused were ordered to run companycurrently.
Surat Singh accused thereafter transferred the deposit of Rs.
It was also directed that out of the fine, if realised, Rs.
Surat Singh further admitted that out of that amount, Rs.
The companynterfoil PI when produced in companyrt by Ram Kishan shows that the date July 18, 1963 had been scored off and companytained the.
The writing was as under Rs.
The necessary particulars have been filled in this receipt.
There were also charges against the two accused about their having forged the writing purporting to be receipts issued by Ram Kishan in respect of the amounts of Rs.
46,875.
