Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Punchhi, J.
Sukhdev Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2695-M of 1986,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 12, 1986
Public Servant - Sarpanch - The court held that the petitioner, as a Sarpanch, is considered a public servant under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, and therefore the offences alleged against him fall under Ss. 409/201, Penal Code, without the bar of limitation under S. 468 of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ex-Sarpanch, sought to quash an F.I.R. registered against him for alleged defalcations and criminal breach of trust during his tenure as Sarpanch.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a Sarpanch, is considered a public servant under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, and therefore the F.I.R. cannot be quashed, and the proceedings based on it before the learned Magistrate are valid.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as a Sarpanch, is considered a public servant and whether the offences alleged against him fall under Ss. 409/201, Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on S. 3(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, which defines a public servant to include a Panch and a Sarpanch, thereby rejecting the petitioner's argument and upholding the charges against him.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the F.I.R. and the proceedings based on it were dismissed by the court.
1. In this petition under S. 482 of Cr. P.C. effort is being made to quash an F.I.R. registered against an ex-Sarpanch under Ss. 409 and 201, Penal Code, for alleged defalcations and criminal breach of trust committed sometime between 1964 to 1969 while in office as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Babarpur, District Ludhiana.
2. The claim of the petitioner is that as a Sarpanch, he was not a public servant, as defined in S. 21 of the Penal Code. And if that view is correct, it is maintained that the offence would at best be under Ss. 406/201, Penal Code, attracting the bar of limitation under S. 468 of Cr.P.C.
3. The argument has no basis. The petitioner is a public servant on account of S. 3(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act defining as to who is a public servant. It says that a public servant means a public servant as defined in S. 21 of the Penal Code, 1860 and shall include a Panch and a Sarpanch. This knocks out the foundation of the argument and consequently the plea of limitation.
4. For the above reasons, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed; so also the proceedings which are based thereon before the learned Magistrate who has framed charge gainst the petitioner under Ss. 409/201, Penal Code. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
