The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the appellant's explanation for his actions was convincing.

By this appeal, the appellant, Shri Jat Ram (75), challenges the judgment of Special Judge, Kangra Division in C.C. No. 7/85, decided on 11-3-1987, whereby the appellant has been convicted u/Ss.409/467/471 of the Penal Code and S. 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment thereof, further simple imprisonment for 15 days u/S.409 of the Penal Code. Similar sentences have been awarded under the remaining provisions referred to above. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellant feels aggrieved by this judgment. Hence this appeal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant remained Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Pantehar, in Development Block, Baijuath, 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 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. 184-50 out of the total amount of Rs. 1424/- entrusted to him in relation to the construction of new Kuhal, Sunpur, and for the construction of the road from village Pantehar to the Block Development Office, Baijnath, between the period commencing from 12-2-1967 to 6-2-1968 by forging the muster-rolls, cash book and the receipts which were valuable securities and showed false payment to the labourers engaged in the construction of the aforesaid developmental works. The appellant fraudulently used the aforesaid documents, knowing fully well that they were forged by him, as genuine and, therefore, he being a public servant as such and in that capacity entrusted dominion over the property, dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated an amount of Rs. 184.50 out of it and converted the same to his own use and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

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 developmental 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 to adjust the amounts entrusted to him by the Panchayat Samiti Office. A case was registered with the police, Anti Corruption Unit Branch, Dharamshala, 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 Panchayat, extracts of cash books and the specimen signatures of various witnesses as well as the appellant for comparison and it was found that the impressions on the documents tallied with those of the appellant and not the labourers who had actually worked with the Panchayat on those works in question. As a result of investigation, a challan u/Ss.409/467/ 471 of the Pen al Code and S.5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was filed and the appellant was charged under these Sections when he claimed to be tried.

5. The appellant in his examination u/S.313 of the Cr. P.C. admitted that he had remained President of the Gram Panchayat continuously from 1960 to 1972. It has also been admitted that he received an amount of Rs. 1424/- in three installments of Rs. 462,462 and 500 on 16-3-1966, 1-8-1966 and 9-6-1967 respectively from the Panchayat Samiti office against proper receipts in relation to the construction work of new Kuhal, Sunpur, and road construction. It is also admitted that the work was undertaken by engaging labourers and the same was supervised by the appellant. It appears from the evidence that the appellant has not clearly admitted the custody of Panchayat records, its maintenance, maintenance o