JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Singh, J.

The instant application seeking leave to appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned JMIC, Sirsa, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Section 409,420,467,468,471 and 120-B of IPC.

2. Vide order dated 18.01.2024, the Lower Court record was called for. The same has been received today.

3. A complaint was made before the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. by the complainants-Dashrath (CW-1), Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Narayan Khera and Anil Kumar (CW-3), son of Smt. Vidya Devi, the then Panch of the above-mentioned Gram Panchayat. It was alleged therein that respondents 2 to 4, in connivance with each other, had misappropriated the funds of Gram Panchayat Naryan Khera.

The following were the allegations regarding the illegalities allegedly committed by the accused: -

1. Fraud in the acquisition of land for the installation of a tubewell.

2. Scam involving the construction of a privately sanctioned passage using Panchayat funds and property.

3. Purchases made at inflated prices exceeding the market value, without calling for any tenders , were comprehensively stated in the complaint.

The complainant, dissatisfied with the inaction of the competent authority, had approached the learned Magistrate by filing a complaint.

4. In the preliminary evidence, the complainant himself was examined as CW-1 and Data Ram, Naib Tehsildar as CW-2, Anil Kumar as CW-3, and Raj Pal Patwari as CW-4. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.03.2015, accused Sunita Devi, Satyaprakash, and Vidya Devi (Respondents 2 to 4) were summoned to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 409,420,367,468 and 471 read with 120-B of IPC. The complaint against accused Bharat Singh, BDPO, was dismissed at the summoning stage itself.

5. Charges were framed against the said accused under Sections 420,409 read with 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. During the trial, the complainant examined five witnesses, i.e. complainant himself as CW-1; Anil as CW-2, Data Ram as CW-3, Shashi (CW-4) and Parveen Kumar as CW-5. In support of its case, the complainant and prosecution had also produced evidence in the form of Ex. Cl, Ex. C2, Ex. C3 Resolutions of Gram Panchayat, Ex. C4/Ex.P4 Sale Deed, Ex. C5/P5 Mutation, Ex.C6, Ex.C7, Ex.C8, Ex.C9 Resolutions of Gram Panchayat, Ex. C10/P3 Complaint, Ex. C11/Pl Complaint, Ex. C12/P2 Postal Receipts, Ex. C13/P4 Property Registry, Ex. P6, Ex. P7, Ex. P8, Ex. P9, Ex. PI0, Ex. P11, Ex. P12 Proposals/Resolutions of the Gram Panchayat, Ex. P13, Ex. P14 Revenue Records, Ex. Pl5, Ex. P16 Mutation. The defence examined one witness, namely, Mahavir (DW-1), and produced evidence in the form of Ex. DX Resolution of Gram Panchayat/ Declaration, in support of its case. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused person.

7. The grounds considered by the learned Trial Court for acquitting the Respondents are as under: -

1. The Material witnesses, namely, Rai Singh as well as one Satish, have neither been examined nor summoned through the process of the Court to prove that there was any prior agreement or willingness on their part to transfer any land for free for installation of a tubewell.

2. No evidence has been brought on record to prove that the amounts of Rs.2,80,000/- (for the purchase of 3 marlas of land) and Rs.4,10,100/- (for installation of a steel gate) have been received by respondent number 1 and 2 instead of the seller or have been purchased at an exorbitant price.

3. That there was no inducement made on the part of Vidya Devi (Respondent number 4) to the Gram Panchayat for selling her land with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the said gram panchayat or the public.

4. No evidence has been brought on record to prove that the accused persons were legally bound as per provisions of law for calling tenders for the purpose of carrying the development projects in the village.

8. The l