http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: MOHINDER SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/03/1974

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1974 AIR  873            1974 SCR  (3) 519  1974 SCC  (4) 285

ACT: Indian   Penal  Code,  Ss.409,  read   with   s.109--Whether conviction  could be sustained on oral evidence in the  face of  negative  written evidence-Illiteracy  How  far  benefit could be given.

HEADNOTE: The complainant who was Sarpanch of gram panchayat asked the second appellant, his predecessor, to make over the  records of  the gram-panchayat, transfer its accounts and hand  over the  money  belonging  to the gram panchayat  to  him.   The second  appellant put him off.  When be made a complaint  to higher  authorities  the second appellant  transferred  some amount  to  the complainant, but not the whole of  it.   The complainant filed a suit in Civil Court for recovery of  the balance  and rendition of accounts in respect of the  unpaid amount  which was also large.  The suit of  the  complainant for rendition of accounts,was dismissed by the Civil  Court, accepting the evidence of the second appellant and his  plea that the accounts between the parties had been settled., The complainant  filed  a  complaint  alleging  that  the  first appellant, an advocate and the second appellant had made him sign  an  official receipt of the gram  panchayat  with  its official  seal  affixed on the receipt and took  it  without making  the payment of money to him.  The  second  appellant was tried for offences under sections 409, 461 read with 109 and  474  Indian Penal Code and the  first  appellant  under s.409  read with s.109, section 467 read with  s.109  Indian Penal Code and were convicted and sentenced to various terms of  imprisonment and fine.  The High Court  confirmed  their conviction  and  sentences.   Before  the  trial  court  the complainant  led oral evidence to prove that the  appellants had taken advantage of his illiteracy and a trick was played upon him by them. Allowing the appeals to this Court, HELD:  There are clear infirmities in the prosecution  case. It is not possible to sustain the conviction of the accused. Oral  evidence which runs counter to an admission  contained in writing signed by a party in the very nature of things is a very weak piece of evidence and cannot be accepted without a  grain of salt.  In the face of the finding of  the  Civil Court  it  would  be  incongruous  to  convict  the   second

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

appellant on the basis that the amount of the Gram Panchayat was  still due from him. The complainant may  be  illiterate but  there  must  be  a limit up to  which  the  benefit  of illiteracy  can  be  extended to him.   The  fact  that  the complainant  was  illiterate could not induce the  court  to ignore the infirmities in his evidence or to fill in lacunae in the prosecution case.[524B-C,525B-D,526A-B] This  fact would also not justify the benefit of  the  doubt being  given to the prosecution instead of to  the  accused. [526B]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.  221 of 1970 A-S 47 of 1971. Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated the  8th October, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeals Nos. 374 and ’76 of 1970. Nuruddin Ahmad and U.P. Singh, for the appellants: N. N. Goswamy and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA,      J.-Surat Singh and Mohinder Singh Advocate were tried  in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Karnal  for various 520 offences.   The learned Additional Sessions Judge  convicted Surat  ,Singh under section 409 Indian Penal  Code,  section 467 read with section 109 Indian Penal Code and section  474 Indian  Penal  Code and sentenced him  to  undergo  rigorous imprisonment for a period of Iwo years and to pay a fine  of Rs.  25,000 or in default to undergo  rigorous  imprisonment for a further period of eight months on the first count,  to undergo  rigorous imprisonment for a period of one  year  on the  second count and rigorous imprisonment for a period  of one  year  on the third count.  Mohinder Singh  accused  was convicted  under  section 409 read with section  109  Indian Penal  Code  and section 467 read with  section  109  Indian Penal   Code   and  was  sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine  of Rs.  25,000 or in default to undergo  rigorous  imprisonment for a further period of eight months on the first count  and to undergo rigorous imprisonment or a period of one year  on the second count.  The substantive sentences of imprisonment in  the case of each of the two accused were ordered to  run concurrently.  It was also directed that out of the fine, if realised,  Rs. 46,875 should be paid to the  Gram  Panchayat Neemwala.   On  appeal  the Punjab and  Haryana  High  Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.  By special  leave Mohinder  Singh  has filed criminal appeal No. 221  of  1970 while Surat Singh has filed criminal appeal No. 47 of  1971. This judgment would dispose of both the appeals. The  prosecution case is that prior to the year  1961,  four villages, namely, Seonsar, Hailwa, Neemwala and Ramgarh  Ror had  a common Gram Panchyat known as Gram Panchyat  Seonsar. Surat  Singh accused was the Sarpanch of the Gram  Panchyat. Ram  Kishan  was then a member of the Gram Panchyat  and  he represented  village Ramgarh Ror.  Each of the  other  three villages  was also represented by a Panch.  In  1957-58  the Government acquired large areas of shamlat land of  villages Ramgarh   Ror,  Seonsar  and  Hailwa  for  the  purpose   of establishing  a big forest plantation.  The shamlat land  of these villages had already vested in the Panchyat under  the Punjab  Village  Common  Lands  (Regulation)  Act.   On  the acquisition of those lands, the Government paid compensation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

amounting to Rs. 3,51,844.  Out of that amount, Rs. 1,68,844 represented the compensation for the acquisition of  shamlat land in village Ramgarh Ror.  Surat Singh in his capacity as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchyat received those amounts and the compensation for each of the villages Was kept distinct  and separate,  so  that the benefit of the money  should  accrue only to the respective villages.  The compensation amount of Rs. 1,68,800 relating to Ramgarh Ror was invested as follows (i) Rs. 1,00,000 deposited in the Kaithal Mandi Post Office (ii) Rs.  50,000 deposited in the Reserve Bank of India  New Delhi (iii)Rs.  18,800 deposited in the Central Co-operative  Bank Kaithal The Gram Panchyat of Seonsar continued to function up to the beginning  of  1961.  Some amounts out of  the  compensation deposited were withdrawn for being spent for those villages. 521 In  the beginning of 1961 the Government split the  area  of Gram   Panchyat   Seonsar  into  two  separate   areas   and constituted two Gram Panchyats.  In this new arrangement the ’Gram’  Panchyat Seonsar functioned only for  two  villages, namely,  Seonsar  and  Hailwa.  For  villages  Neemwala  and Ramgarh  Ror  a new Gram, Panchyat known as-  Gram  Panchyat Neemwala.  was constituted.  After the formation of the  new Panchyat Ram Kishan PW was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat Neemwala,  while Surat Singh continued, as Sarpanch of  Gram Panchyat   Seonsar.   After  the.elections  Ram  Kishan   as Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat Neemwala made a demand and for the custody of the Panchyat,record relating to the two; villages Neemwala Land Ramgarh Ror and also ’asked for the payment of the  amount standing in the account of village Ramgarh  Ror. Surat  Singh accused, however, put off Ram Kishan  PW.   Ram Kishan   thereupon  made  an  application  to   the   higher authorities.  Surat Singh accused thereafter transferred the deposit  of  Rs.  1,00,000  in the name  of  Ram  Kishan  as Sarpaanch  of  the new Panchyat.  No  steps  were,  however, taken  by  Surat  Singh accused to  transfer  the  remaining amount.        As       Surat      Singh       did       not not render accounts, Ram Kishan PW consulted Mohinder  Singh Advocate accused and on the latter’s advice filed a suit for rendition  of the accounts against Surat Singh in the  Court of  Sub Judge at Kaithal.  Mohinder Singh accused  was  also engaged by Ram Kishan PW a,,; his counsel in that case.  Ram Kishan  then  learnt that Mohinder- Singh accused  had  good relations  with  Surat Singh and  he,  therefore,  requested Mohinder  Singh for his help, for the return of the  balance of the amount- lying with Surat Singh.  On the advice  given by Mohinder Singh, Ram Kishan got passed resolution DB/1  by Gram,  Panchyat Neemwala on May 14, 1963 whereby Rao  Kishan was  authorised  on behalf of the Panchyat  to  receive  the amount  due from Gram Panchyat.  Seonsar.  Ram  Kishan  also handed  over memorandum PWI/A which had been issued  by  the Reserve  Bank  of  India for the deposit of  Rs.  50,000  to Mohinder Singh accused. Ram Kishan thereafter made enquiries from  Mohinder Singh about the amount of Rs. 50,000  but  on each  occasion Ram Kishan was put off by Mohinder Singh  by, saying that the amount had not been transferred and th as as it was done, he would get in touch with Ram Kishan.  As  the payment of the amount was being delayed and some funds  were needed’  for  the  school building,  Ram  Kishan  talked  to Mohinder Singh in the first week of December 1963 about  the payment  of Rs. 6,000 which ’was due as interest.   Mohinder Singh then told Ram Kishan to come to his office on December 13,  1963  with the receipt book of the  Panchayat  and  its official seal.  Mohinder Singh, also mentioned that he would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

send  for Surat Singh accused on that: day and would  secure the  payment of the interest amount of Rs. 6 000 as well  as of the principal amount if the same too was received. On  December 13,1963 at about 10 a.m. , it is stated  ,  Ram Kishan  PW  accompanied  by Mussadi went to  the  Office  of Mohinder  Singh accused with the official receipt  book  and seal of Neemwala Panchayat.  Both the accused were,  present in  the office.  Mohinder Singh accused then called  a-  boy aged about 14 or 15 years and got something written 5-M 45 Sup CI/75 522 on  the official receipt book which had been brought by  Ram Kishan.   Rant  Kishan  knows only Landa  character  and  is otherwise illiterate.  Mussadi too is illiterate.  Both  Ram Kishan  and  Mussadi kept sitting at some  distance  smoking Hookah.   Ram  Kishan  was then  called  by  Mohinder  Singh accused  and his signatures were obtained on receipt  DA  as well  as counterfoil Pi of that receipt.  The official  seat of the Gram Panchayat was also taken from Ram Kishan and was affixed  both  on the receipt and  the  counterfoil  thereof under the signatures of Ram Kishan.  Receipt DA was torn off from  the  receipt book by Mohinder Singh  accused  and  was handed  over  to  Surat  Singh  accused.   When  Ram  Kishan protested  that the receipt had been taken from him  without his being handed over any money, he was assured by  Mohinder Singh  accused that he would be taken to the bank  and  paid the  money there.  Ram Kishan, Mussadi and the  two  accused then went to Cooperative Bank Kaithal.  The clerk on duty in the  bank told Mohinder Singh that the sum of Rs.  6,000  on account  of  interest  could not be  paid  in  cash  without sanction  but  he would transfer the amount in the  name  of Gram  Panchyat  Neemwala from the account of  Gram  Panchyat Seonsar  by a book entry.  The amount of Rs. 6,000  in  this way  transferred to the account of Gram  Panchyat  Neemwala. Surat  Singh  accused  then went  away,  while  Ram  Kishan, Mussadi  and Mohinder Singh went to the office  of  Mohinder Singh.   At the office Ram Kishan demanded back the  receipt from Mohinder Singh as the amount had not been paid in cash. Ram  Kishan  was, however, told by Mohinder Singh  that  the receipt  was with Surat Singh.  Mussadi PW was then sent  to call Surat Singh but the latter declined to come.   Mohinder Singh  told  Ram Kishan that he need  not  worry.   Mohinder Singh also wrote the word "Cancelled" on the counterfoil PI. Mohinder Singh further promised to get the original  receipt back  from  Surat Singh.  Ram Kishan and Mussadi  then  came back  to the village.  Some days later a fresh election  was held  and  Mehar  Chand  became  the  Sarpanch  of  Neemwala Panchyat. According  further  to the prosecution case, about  a  month after the fresh elections Ram Kishan learnt from an overseer of  Block  Samiti Chika that Surat Singh had  withdrawn  the amount  of Rs. 50,000 from the bank and was giving out  that he had paid that money to Ram Kishan and got a receipt  from Ram  Kishan  for that amount.  Ram Kishan at first  did  not attach  much  importance to that talk but  when  the  rumour persisted, Ram Kishan learnt on enquiry that the amount  had already  been withdrawn by Surat Singh accused  some  months earlier.   Ram Kishan then made a complaint to the  District Magistrate Karnal on June 12, 1964 praying that a case might be registered against the accused under sections 120B,  409, 467,  468 and 471 Indian Penal Code.  A case was  thereafter registered against the accused. During  the investigation of the case it transpired that  an amount  of  Rs. 46,875 which was lying in deposit  with  the Reserve  Bank  of  India in the  account  of  Gram  Panchyat

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

Seonsar  was  sent on July 12, 1963 by bank draft  to  Surat Singh.  The aforesaid amount was credited in the account  of Surat Singh with the Co-operative Bank Kaithal 523 on  July 18, 1963.  The same day, i. e. July 189 1963  Surat Singh  withdrew  the amount of Rs. 46,875 from the  bank  by means  of  a  cheque.   It  further  transpired  during  the investigation that receipt DA which was got signed from  Ram Kishan  was  for an amount of Rs. 46,875 and that  the  said receipt  before the date July 18, 1963.  Writing   marked  A was  also made on copy DR of resolution DB/1.   The  writing was as under: "Rs. 46,875 received. Receipt accordingly issued. Thumb Impression, Ram Kishan Sarpanch, Neemwala 18-7-63." The charge which was framed against Surat Singh was that  he had  committed  criminal breach of trust in respect  of  Rs. 46,875 while that framed against Mohinder Singh was that  he had abetted the commission of the above offence.  There were also  charges  against the two accused  about  their  having forged the writing& purporting to be receipts issued by  Ram Kishan in respect of the amounts of Rs. 46,875.  Surat Singh was further charged for keeping in his possession the forged receipts for fraudulent and dishonest use of the same. At the trial Surat Singh accused, admitted that a sum of Rs. of  village  844  had  been  received  as  compensation  for acquistion of the land age Ramgarh Ror.  Surat Singh further admitted  that  out  of that amount,  Rs.  50,000  had  been deposited  n the Reserve Bank of India. it was not  disputed by Surat Singh that the Gram Panchyat Seonsar had been split into  two Panchyats.  According to Surat singh, he  withdrew on  July  18,  1963 Rs. 46,875 found due  on  the  basis  of deposit  certificate of the value of Rs. 50,000 and he  paid the  same amount to-Ram Kishan PW as per receipt Ex.  A.  on DU  as well as the official receipt DA. Surat  Singh  denied having  gone to the office of Mohinder Sin  on December  13, 1963.The     allegation    that    the     receipts     were fabricated  or that any amount had been  misappropriated  by Surat Singh were denied by him. Mohinder  Singh  accused  admitted having filed  a  suit  as counsel  of  Gram  Panchyat Neemwala  against  Surat  Singh. Mohinder  Singh  denied the other  allegations  against  him Mohinder  Singh expressed ignorance about the withdrawal  of money  from  the  being by Surat Singh  on  July  18,  1963: Likewise  the  allegation that Rath Kishan and  Mussadi  had visited  his  office on 1 December 13, 1963  was  denied  by Mohinder  Singh.  Mohinder Singh also denied that  the  word "Cancelled" on counterfoil PI of receipt DA was in his hand. The   trial  Court,  as  mentioned  earlier,  accepted   the prosecution allegations and convicted and sentenced :he two- accused  as  above.  On appeal the High Court  affirmed  the judgment of the trial court. 524 In  a peal before us Mr. Nuruddin, learned council  for  the appellants  has taken us through the evidence on record  and has  contended  that the amount of Rs.  46,875  after  being withdrawn  from the bank On July 18, 1963 was paid by  Surat Singh  to  Ram  Kishan.  It is further  contended  that  Ram Kishan  instead of accounting for ’that amount  has  falsely involved  the two accused in this case.  As  against  that,- Mr.  Goswami  on  behalf  of the  state  has  supported  the judgments  of  the High Court and the trial  court  and  has urged  that no case has been made for interference with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

view taken by those courts. We  have  given the matter our consideration and  find  that there are glaring infirmities in the prosecution case and as such,  it is not possible to sustain the conviction  of  the accused.   It is in the evidence of Kitab Singh (PW  4)  who was  posted as an official in the Kaithal Co-operative  Bank that on July 18, 1963 Surat Singh withdrew the amount of Rs. 46,875 from that bank after that amount had been transferred from the Reserve Bank of India New Delhi.  The accused  have brought  on the record receipt DA., It is a printed  receipt in Hindi in the prescribed form.  The necessary  particulars have been filled in this receipt.  The receipt is dated July 18,  1963 and according to it, Rs. 46,875 were  received  by Ram  Kishan  PW  from Surat Singh  Sarpanch  Seonsar.   This receipt  admittedly  bears the signatures of Ram  Kishan  in Landa  character and also bears the seal of  Gram  Panchayat Neemwala.   In  addition  to receipt DA,  the  accused  have produced another receipt about the payment of Rs. 46,875  by Surat  Singh to Ram Kishan.  This receipt is on copy  DB  of resolution  DB/1  which had been passed  by  Gram  Panchayat Neemwala  on May 14,1963.  Ram Kishan PW was  authorised  by this  resolution to re the amount of Rs. 50,000  which.  had been  deposited in the Reserve Bank of India and to issue  a receipt  after  receiving  that  amount,  Copy  Ex.  DB   is admittedly  in the hand of Mukand Lal (PW 13), who  was  the Secretary  of Panchayat Neemwala and is signed by  him.  The receipt  is in the form of writing A wherein it  is  recited that  Rs. 46,875 had been received by Ram Kishan and he  had also  issued a receipt in token of his having received  that amount.   The writing is dated July 18, 1963.   The  accused examined  Gian  Parkash Sharma (DW 3) Finger  Print  Expert, whose  evidence shows that the thumb impression  on  writing marked  A tallied with the admitted thumb impression of  Ram Kishan  PW.  Ram Kishan PW also did not deny that the  thumb impression   underneath  writing  marked  A  was  his   own. According  to  him, the thumb impression might be  his  own. There is an addition evidence on the record that the writing marked  A was in the hand of Chaudhry Daryao Singh, who  was the  Manager of Co-operative Bank in July,  1963.   Chaudhry Daryao  Singh  is now dead, but the fact  that  the  writing marked  A  on Ex.  DB is in the hand  of.   Chaudhry  Daryao Singh is proved by the testimony of Kitab Singh’(PW 4), who, was incharge of the Co-operative Bank, as well as by that of Nihal  Singh (DW 1), who is a first cousin of  Daryao  Singh deceased and is familiar with his handwriting.  The  receipt DA as well as the writing marked A on which were signed  and thumb  marked  by  Ram  Kishan  PW  show  that  Surat  Singh immediately after withdrawing the amount of 525 Rs.  46, 875  from the Co-operative Bank on July  18,   1963 paid  that  amount  to  Ram Kishan  PW.   The  case  of  the prosecution is that though Ram Kishan issued those receipts, he did not receive the amount of Rs. 46,875.  It is  alleged that advantage was taken of the illiteracy of Ram Kishan and a.  trick  was played upon him by giving him  the  assurance that those writings related to the amount of Rs. 6,000.   It is  further  alleged that though the two receipts  bore  the date  July 18, 1963, they were in fact prepared on  December 13,   1963.   The  prosecution  in  support  of  the   above allegation  has examined Ram Kishan (PW 1) and  Mussadi  (PW 2).   We find ourselves unable to accept the  statements  of Ram Kishan and Mussadi in this respect.  Oral evidence which runs counter to an admission contained in writing signed  by a party in the very nature of things is a very weak piece of evidence and cannot be accepted without a grain of salt.  It

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

seems  difficult  to  believe that  Ram  Kishan  signed  the official receipt as well as the other receipt on copy DB  of the  resolution  without receiving the amount  in  question. Even  if Ram kishan knew only Landa character, he could  not be  unaware of the fact that receipt Ex.  DA was not for  an amount  of  Rs.  6,000, in which sum  there  are  only  four numerals,  but for a much bigger amount consisting  of  five numerals. There  is another circumstance which militates  against  the case  of the prosecution that it was sometime in  1964  that Ram  Kishan came to Know that a trick had been  played  upon him and that he had been      made to issue on December  13, 1963 a receipt dated July 18, 1963      for an amount of Rs. 46,875 without receiving that amount. The         official receipt book from which receipt DA had been issued  remained with  Ram  Kishan  when he returned  to  his  village  after receipt DA had      been  handed  over to Surat  Singh.  The said  receipt  book contained counterfoil PI of  receipt  DA which  had been handed over to Surat Singh. The trial  court has  found that the said counterfoil bore the date July  18, 1963  and was for an amount of Rs. 46,875. Ram  Kishan  must have shown  that  counterfoil to the Secretary of  the  Gram Panchayat or some   other  literate person after his  return to the village and, as such, could      not  have   remained unaware of the fact that the receipt which he had      issued was dated July 18, 1963 and was for an amount of Rs. 46,875. There  was  all the more reason for Ram Kishan to  show  the counterfoil  to  someone because, according to him,  he  had insisted upon       obtaining   a  writing   regarding   the cancellation of the receipt, counterfoil of which was PI. It is difficult to believe that Ram Kishan after          coming to  know  on  December  13,  1963  that  a  receipt  of  Rs. 46,875.dated July 18, 1963 had been obtained from him  would have  kept  quiet  for a number of  months  thereafter.  The counterfoil  PI when produced in court by Ram  Kishan  shows that the date July 18, 1963 had been    scored    off    and contained the. date December 19, 1963. Likewise, the  amount of  Rs.  46,875 had been scored off and in  its  place,  the amount  of Rs. 6,000 had been mentioned in the  counterfoil. The scoring off of the date and the amount mentioned on  the counterfoil  Ex. PI and their substitution by the  new  date and  amount  must plainly have been done by someone  at  the instance of Ram Kishan. If the conscience of Ram Kishan  was clear, it is not explained as to why he 526 got the date and amount scored off and got inserted  another date  and  amount.  Ram Kishan may be illiterate  but  there must be a limit up to which the benefit of illiteracy can be extended  to  him.  The fact that Ram Kishan  is  illiterate cannot  induce  the court to ignore the infirmities  in  his evidence or to fill in lacunae in the prosecution case. In any case, this fact would not justify the benefit of  the doubt  being  given to the prosecution, instead  of  to  the accused. An  attempt  was made by the prosecution to  show  that  the receipt  book  from  which receipt DA was  issued  had  been purchased on October 24,1963 from Harish Chander (PW 10), as per  cash memo PWI/D.  This cash memo, however,  relates  to the  sale  of receipt book No. 9. There can be  hundreds  of such receipt books and it is admitted by Harish Chander that he  cannot say whether the cash memo relates to the  receipt book from which receipt DA had been issued or to some  other receipt  book.  It, therefore, cannot be said to  have  been proved  that receipt book from which receipt DA  was  issued had been purchased on October, 1963.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

There are also some other circumstances which create a doubt about the correctness of the prosecution allegations.  It is admitted  by  Ram  Kishan  PW that long  before  he  made  a complaint  to the District Magistrate, he came to know  that Surat Singh was representing that he had paid the amount  of compensation  which was lying in deposit with  the,  Reserve Bank  of  India to Ram Kishan and that Surat  Singh  was  in possession of receipt for the payment of that amount.  Surat Singh also mentioned in a suit brought by him in August 1964 against  Ram,  Kishan  that he had paid the  amount  of  Rs. 46,875 to Ram Kishan as per receipt dated July 18, 1963.  It would,  therefore, follow that Surat Singh has  always  been taking  the stand that he had paid the amount of Rs.  46,875 to Ram Kishan on July 18, 1963 as per receipt issued by  the latter  and that the plea taken by him at the trial was  not the result of an afterthought. Another  fact  which  may also be  mentioned  in  the  above context  that  a suit was brought in September 1962  by  Ram Kishan PW on behalf of Gram Panchayat Neemwala against  Gram Panchayat Seonisar though Surat Singh accused for  rendition of  account.  in,respect  of the assets  of  Gram  Panchayat Neemwala.  In that suit the plea of Surat Singh was that the account between the parties had been settled.  Evidence  was also led by Surat Singh to that effect.  The court  accepted this  evidence  and held as per judgment dated  October  19, 1963 that the accounts between the parties had been,settled. The, plaintiff’s suit was accordingly dismissed, In the face of  that finding of the civil Court, it would appear  to  be incongruous  to  convict Surat Singh on the basis  that  the amount of Gram Panchayat Neemwala was still due from him. 5Z7 We thus find that the prosecution case suffers from  glaring infirmities.   In fact, there are some  circumstances  which lend  credence  to the plea of the accused.  It is,  in  our opinion,  not  possible  to sustain the  conviction  of  the accused  on the material brought on record.  We  accordingly accept the appeals, set aside the conviction of the  accused and acquit them. Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to one aspect.   A  huge  amount belonging to  the  Gram  Panchayat Neemwala is alleged to have been misappropriated by someone. The case of the prosecution is that misappropriation of  the amount was facilitated by the illiteracy of the Sarpanch  of the  Gram  Panchayat.  It may, therefore be  necessary  that some  salutary directions are issued or rules, made so  that because  of  the illiteracy of a Sarpanch the funds  of  the Panchayat  are not embezzled or used for any  purpose  other than that of the Panchayat. P.B.R. Appeals allowed 528