FAO No. 2337 of 2007 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
FAO No. 2337 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision : 16.12.2009
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee ... Appellant
vs
S. Jagtar Singh and another .... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Amit Rana, Advocate, for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The present appeal has been filed by the Shiromani Gurdwara
Parbandhak Committee against the judgment dated 4.5.2006 whereby the petition
under Section 142 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925, was dismissed by the Sikh
Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar (for short, “the Commission”).
Briefly the facts of the case are that respondents no. 1 and 2, who are
President and Vice President of the notified Sikh Gurdwara Sri Guru Hargobind
Sahib and Gurdwara Sahib Gurusar Patshahi VIth, Village Sudhar (Ludhiana),
respectively, in connivance with each other misappropriated a sum of Rs. 22,640/-
which they had collected as donation Charawa at the time of Shahidi Dihada of
Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib in Gurdwara Sahib held on 12.12.1999. They neither
issued any receipt nor entered the amount in the cash book and in this way
embezzled the amount. As per report of pre-auditor dated 31.3.2002, they have
also shown expenses of Rs. 27,014/- in the cash book for the year 1999-2000 and
no bill was found for the amount so spent. It was alleged that in total, the
respondents have caused loss of Rs. 49,654/- to the Gurdwara and prayed that a
decree for a sum of Rs. 49,654/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum on the
decretal amount and Rs. 15,000/- as damages. The case was registered and
summons were issued to the respondents.
After completion of evidence, the petition filed by the appellant was
dismissed, however, as the respondents were found carelessness in maintaining the
accounts, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on them.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commission has
not appreciated the evidence led by the appellant Committee. It has proved audit
reports and enquiries but the same were not taken into consideration while
FAO No. 2337 of 2007 -2-
recording the findings. He also submitted that the Commission has decided the
case with majority. One of the members of the Commission had ordered for
recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondents and in this way he has held them
liable for embezzlement.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
the Commission has not found the respondents liable for any embezzlement and
rightly dismissed the petition. It is only for their not maintaining the accounts
properly that they have been penalised and this finding cannot lead to record a
finding of embezzlement.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the
appeal.
The allegations against the respondents are that they embezzled the
money collected by them on two different occasions. The first embezzlement is of
Rs. 22,640/- which they collected on Shahidi Dihada of Sri Guru Teg Bahadur
Sahib in Gurdwara Sahib held on 12.12.1999 and second embezzlement of Rs.
27,014/- was found in the report of pre-auditor dated 31.3.2002.
Regarding the first embezzlement of Rs. 22,640/-, the appellant
Committee produced PW4 Balkar Singh, Member Flying Squad. In the cross-
examination, this witness admitted that he had given figure of Rs. 22,640/- on the
statement of President (respondent no. 1) but he did not record his statement to that
effect. He also admitted that he compared the income of the Nagar Kirtan with the
previous years but the same has also not been recorded on the file. This witness
also admitted in his cross-examination that the Flying Squad had enquired from the
Sangat and villagers orally, but had not recorded statement of any one. He has also
admitted that Rs. 2 lacs were given to the school of PW5 Bhagwant Singh, one of
the Members of the Gurdwara Committee Gurusar Sudhar (Ludhiana) and later on
stopped by the respondents.
About the second embezzlement of Rs. 27,014/- the appellant
Committee had not led any evidence. The witnesses produced by the appellant
Committee could not bring any material on record regarding embezzlement of
gurdwara funds allegedly committed by the respondents. Rather, the respondents,
as observed in the judgment, have denied the misappropriation of funds.
In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is
accordingly dismissed. In any case, the courts have to decide the cases on the basis
of evidence produced on record by the parties and in the present case on the basis
of evidence on record, no findings could be recorded against the respondents. Still
as we all believe in God and there are allegations by the appellant against the
FAO No. 2337 of 2007 -3-
respondents for embezzlement of donation money, in case that is so the
respondents will face the consequence thereof.
16.12.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge