Judgment:
Crl.
Revision No.3802 of 2012 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.
Revision No.3802 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:
30. 11.2012.
Mast Ram .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioner had faced the trial under qua commission of offence punishable Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) in FIR No.25 dated 28.5.2000, registered at Police Station Machiwara, District Ludhiana.
The trial Court vide judgment/order dated 6.7.2005 convicted and sentenced the petitioner qua commission of offence punishable under Section 409 IPC.
Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment/order of conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 8.10.2012.
Hence, the present petition by the accused- petitioner.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
A perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Court reveals that it was not disputed that an amount of ` 73853.72 Paisa of the Panchayat fund had been entrusted to the petitioner being Sarpanch of the village.
Before the trial Court, petitioner had failed to establish that the said amount in question had been utilized by the petitioner for development work.
Before the Appellate Court, petitioner had moved an application for additional evidence to Crl.
Revision No.3802 of 2012 (O&M) -2- prove that the amount in question had been duly spent by the petitioner for the Panchayat works.
The said application was dismissed by the Appellate Court on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish that the entire amount in question had been spent for Panchayat works by the petitioner.
Even otherwise the evidence in question was available with the petitioner but he had failed to prove the same on record before the trial Court.
The learned Appellate Court has further observed that even if the additional evidence of the petitioner was taken on record, even then it was not established that the amount of ` 73853/- had been duly utilized by the petitioner for Panchayat works.
In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 30, 2012 Gurpreet