(Querist) 30 October 2008
This query is : Resolved
Dear Lawyers, My father was a elected surpunch of village during the tenure of 2001 to 2006. After the 2 years of my father's tenure one of the ex-punch(he was also a elected punch during the tenure of my father) made a complaint to Deputy Commissioner. In the DC enquiry, DC find some mistake about the record maintainance and send us a notice to submit the rs. 96301/-(96301=principal amount + 21% interest) in the panchayat fund. After that we deposit the above said amount in the panchayat fund as per the DC notice. After the above said circumstances, the complaintant filed a complaint against my father in the court 156(3) of crpc and u/s 406,420,471,468,467 of IPC with 28 false allegation. The court allowed his complaint and order the local S.H.O to register an FIR and investigate the matter as per law. Main Point- Now, our lawyer said that in the above said case only the deposit of recovery is the main fault of my father. He said that in the apprehension of arrest he is not surely ensure to obtain anticipatory bail of my father. Is the deposit of the recovery is the fault of my father. He just do this to avoid unncessory anxiety and to avoid any other chaos. In realy, he had not done any fraud and it is all done due to some clerical mistake which was written by the secretary of the panchayat. The mistake is about the entring the name of some labourman for the two separate work on same date and time. But due to sake of honesty and social reputation he submit the amount in the panchayat fund
(Expert) 31 October 2008
dear Nishant Singla the act that youer father has done is not all an offence, but i was to ask whether your father is having any reciept of the said deposit. your father will get anticipatory easily on this ground alone that your father has deposit the amuont and this case is just to harass and defame your father.
(Expert) 01 November 2008
Hi Nishant Singla Your father act of depositing the said amount as per the orders of the D.C. is without prejudice to his rights means then his deposit merely cannot be made basis as an admission of crime. Your father ought tohave questioning the very DCNotice and also the D.C. Proceedings.and ought not have deposited the said amounts and subsequenlty now he cannot say that the amounts were deposited only as an honest man generally courts may not accept the deposite as an a gesture of honesty, a question would arise in the mind of the court that when he did not commit any mistake and the mistake is by the secretary then what made him to deposit so huge amount. why he didnot raise his voice as I said against the orders of the D.C.