Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Crl. Misc. No. M 20048 of 2013 Vs. Crl. Misc. No. M 20048 of 2013

Crl. Misc. No. M 20048 of 2013 vs Crl. Misc. No. M 20048 of 2013

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jul 03, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1065320

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Crl. Misc. No. M 20048 of 2013

Respondent

Crl. Misc. No. M 20048 of 2013

Excerpt

.....the apr list under a bona fide belief that the panchayat secretary has disbursed pension to rightful claimants. it is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required. i have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. the petitioner is, admittedly, working as a sarpanch of the village and, therefore, bestowed a very high responsibility to run the administration of the village. the petitioner owes an obligation to ensure that the functionaries of the gram panchayat do not misappropriate the funds or embezzle the amount. it appears difficult to believe that the petitioner did not knot about the death of churiya, a resident of the village, in whose favour an entry was made with regard to disbursement of pension in the month of january, 2013 when as a matter of fact he has died in november, 2012. crl. misc. not m 2004.o”3. keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner coupled with his position which he had attained because of confidence reposed by the voters.i do not think it to be a fit case, where the petitioner deserves the benefit of bail in anticipation of arrest. his custodial interrogation is required to unearth the entire issue of embezzlement of amount of old age pension. in the result, the petition is dismissed. (rekha mittal) judge 03.07.2013 mohan

Full Judgment

Crl.

Misc.

not M 2004.o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl.

Misc.

not M 2004.of 2013 Date of decision:

03. 07.2013 Surender .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent Coram: Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal -.- Present: Mr.R S Longia, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Shruti Goel, AAG, Haryana -.- 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Rekha Mittal, J.

Surender son of Dharamvir, Sarpanch of village Bhonsla, Tehsil Narwana has prayed for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest for offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC in regard to FIR 16.dated 29.05.2013, registered at Police Station Uchana, District Jind.

As per the allegations put forth in the FIR, the petitioner being Sarpanch of the village has embezzled bonus amount of old age pension and forged thumb impressions of people affixed in the official record maintained in regard to disbursement of old age pension.

As per record, pension for the month of January, 2013 has been recorded to be disbursed to one Churiya son of Ram Singh in the APR list with purported thump impressions of the said person but said Churiya has already died on Crl.

Misc.

not M 2004.o”

2. 27.11.2012.

Similarly, the amount of enhanced bonus pension of Rai Singh son of Munsi, Ram Kumar son of Chandgi Ram and Khajana son of Chhotu, Jai Singh son of Sheokaran and other many persons for the month of March, 2013 has been embezzled by affixing forged thumb impressions.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the work of disbursement of pension is being performed by the Panchayat Secretary under the supervision of a member of Panchayat, who has not been arrayed as an accused in this case.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is suffering from psychiatry ailment and remained admitted in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh in the month of January, 2013 and is getting follow up treatment from Chandigarh Medical Centre as an OPD patient.

It is argued that the petitioner being the Sarpanch of the village attested the entries made in the APR list under a bona fide belief that the Panchayat Secretary has disbursed pension to rightful claimants.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

The petitioner is, admittedly, working as a Sarpanch of the village and, therefore, bestowed a very high responsibility to run the administration of the village.

The petitioner owes an obligation to ensure that the functionaries of the Gram Panchayat do not misappropriate the funds or embezzle the amount.

It appears difficult to believe that the petitioner did not knot about the death of Churiya, a resident of the village, in whose favour an entry was made with regard to disbursement of pension in the month of January, 2013 when as a matter of fact he has died in November, 2012.

Crl.

Misc.

not M 2004.o”

3. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner coupled with his position which he had attained because of confidence reposed by the voteRs.I do not think it to be a fit case, where the petitioner deserves the benefit of bail in anticipation of arrest.

His custodial interrogation is required to unearth the entire issue of embezzlement of amount of old age pension.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

(Rekha Mittal) Judge 03.07.2013 mohan

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial