The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent evidence to establish allegations of forgery and misappropriation of public funds.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant application is directed against the verdict made on 20.08.2019, upon complaint bearing No. COMI/40/2015 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli, in respect of a private complaint carrying thereins offences constituted under Sections 409, 419, 420, 468 and under Section 471 IPC, whereons a verdict of acquittal, was made in favour of the accused.

Factual Background

2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused Sarpanch allegedly misappropriated the Gram Panchayat development funds and used the same for personal benefit. The accused is alleged to mention the name of certain labourers and mason(s) in the muster roll for the month of March, 2013, and at serial No. 1, 2, 3 and 9 the names of Mukhtiar son of Krishan, Mohan Lal son of Prakash and Vikram son of Attar Singh had been mentioned. It was further alleged that the above persons have not appended their signatures on the muster roll but all the above mentioned signatures are forged by the Sarpanch. Moreover, it is alleged that they never received any money from the Gram Panchayat. That in the similar manner, the muster roll register for the month of October 2012, April 2013, June 2013, July 2013 and August 2012, depicts Mota @ Rakesh son of Hoshiyar, Patwari @ Ashok Kumar son of Ramkishan, Manoj son of Ratan Singh, Mota @ Deepak son of Surender, Mistri Vikram son of Attar Singh, Mukhtiar son of Krishan and Sunder son of Mange Ram, to receive monies from the Gram Panchayat, and, it is also depicted in the muster roll(s) that these persons appended their signatures thereons, but all the signatures are alleged to be forged by the Sarpanch, with an intention to misappropriate the panchayat funds. It is also alleged that the above mentioned persons neither appended their signatures on the muster roll nor received the money as depicted in the muster roll(s). In addition, the accused is alleged to construct one personal street out of the panchayat fund with an intention to cause wrongful gain to Kishan Lal and Shish Ram. The accused also allegedly misappropriated funds out of the panchayat fund by making wrong entries in the records regarding construction of 'chabutra' around 'Neem' and 'Barr' trees. That the bill generated for purchase of 4000 bricks for the above mentioned construction work was also forged and fabricated because the 'chabutra' was already in existence for the last so many years. That the sarpanch also made an entry in the records in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- regarding purchase of dustbins for the village but not even a single dustbin has been placed in the village. Similarly, the amount of Rs. 39,121/- had been shown as spent for installing two handpumps, whereas, the amount is very high as compared to actual installation charges.

Trial Court Proceedings

3. In preliminary evidence, the complainant got examined eight witnesses and tendered documents. Thereafter, the complainant closed the preliminary evidence vide his separate statement dated 05.12.2015. The arguments on the point of summoning of the accused was heard. Subsequently, vide order dated 09.02.2016, the learned trial Judge made a summoning order upon the accused, to face trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Accused Hanumant surrendered before the Court and was admitted to bail vide order dated 10.03.2016.

4. In order to prove his case, the complainant examined eight witnesses in pre-charge evidence and thereafter, the complainant closed his pre-charge evidence vide his statement made on 22.05.2018.

5. The learned trial Judge concerned, after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant, and, also after hearing the learned defence counsel, besides after perusing the documents, as, appended by the complainant, came to a prima facie conclusion, that the accused was amenable for his being tried for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 of the IPC. Resultantly, the learned tr