The court held that the appellant's act of completing the Panchayat records by making certain insertions was not dishonest or fraudulent but was done with the intention of completing the record.

By this appeal, the appellant Shri Jat Ram (75) challenges the judgement of Special Judge, Kangra Division in C.C. No. 9/85, decided on 11-3-1987, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Ss.409/467/471 of the Penal Code and S.5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 100/- in each of the offences and for failure to pay the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The substantive sentences, as aforesaid, have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellant feels aggrieved by this judgement, hence this appeal.

2. The facts, in briefs, are that the appellant remained Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Pantehar, in Development Block, Baijnath, from 1960 to 1972. In that capacity, it is alleged, that the appellant used to handle the cash and records of the Panchayat and received and disbursed payment for and on behalf of the Panchayat. He also maintained accounts of the Panchayat. The prosecution case is that the appellant embezzled an amount of Rs. 436/- out of the total amount of Rs. 4000/- entrusted to him in relation to the construction of new Kuhal, Sunpur, in between the period commencing from October 28,1965 to March 20,1966, by forging muster-rolls, Cash Book, which were valuable security, and showed false payments to the labourers engaged in the construction of the said Kuhal. The appellant on the relevant date, time and place, fraudulently used aforesaid documents knowing fully well that they were forged by him, as genuine and, as such, being the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, so a public servant entrusted dominion over the property, i.e., Rs. 4000/- released to the said Panchayat by the Panchayat Samiti Officer, dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated an amount of Rs. 436/- out of it and converted the same to his own use and thereby committed the offences indicated above.

3. The accounts of the Panchayat were audited by the District Audit Officer (Panchayats) and in December, 1978, under the orders of the Director (Panchayats), Himachal Pradesh, one Shri Sita Ram (P.W. 10) conducted an inquiry in relation to the expenditure incurred on the development works in the Panchayat. By his report (Ex. PX/1), he found that the appellant had committed misappropriation of funds, forgery and use of the muster-rolls and cash book belonging to the Panchayat as genuine documents for the misappropriation of the amount in question. A case was registered with the police, Anti Corruption Unit, Dharamshala Branch, on the basis of the said audit report.

4. Investigation commenced and the police took the entire record, including the muster-rolls, cash books, resolutions of the Panchayat, extracts of cash books and the specimen signatures of the witnesses as well as the appellant for comparison and it was found that the appellant was responsible for number of entries, issuance of receipts and signatures on such documents. The investigation was followed by a challan in the Court of Special Judge under Ss.409, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code and S.5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5. The appellant in his examination under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitted that he had remained President of the Gram Panchayat continuously from 1960 to 1972. He also admits the maintenance of the Panchayat accounts including muster-rolls, Cash Book and other documents as well as the receipt of Rs. 4000/- in two instalments on 26-3-1965 and 21-4-1965 from Panchayat Samiti Officer vide receipts Ex. P.W. 1/A-58 and Ex. P.W. 1/A-59, respectively, in relation to the construction of new Kuhal, Sunpur, undertaken by the aforesaid Panchayat. He has also admitted that the said work was supervised by him by engaging labourers and that the account books namely, muster-roll (Ex. P.1) and Cash Book (Ex. P.2) were also maintained by him. He also admitted that the payments to the labourers so engaged were dis