IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.99 of 2003. Date of Decision: 22.6.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus. Smt. R.D.Verma and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the appellant. : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent No.1. : Mr. B.S.Kanwar, Advocate. For respondent No.2. Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.3. Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State is now in appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge (Forest), H.P. acquitting all the respondents for offences under Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation against the respondents are that respondents No.1 and 2, were the officials of the Himachal Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 Pradesh Nursing Council, in connivance with respondent No.3 Goverdhan Dutt Sharma granted recognition to a Nursing College which was run by him under the name and style of Gandhi Memorial Institute and Hospital, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot (Punjab). The case of the prosecution is that in the year 1992-93 Smt. R.D.Verma was posted as Assistant Director (Nursing-cum-Registrar), Health Services, H.P., Mr. Amar Singh Verma-respondent No.2 was Assistant Secretary (Administration), Indian Nursing Council at New Delhi and Mr. G.D.Sharma was the Medical Superintendent, Gandhi Memorial Institute and Hospital, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot (Punjab). Complaint Ext. PW-7/E dated 22.11.1993 was filed with the Superintendent of Police Vigilance, Shimla by the Assistant Director of Health Services (Nursing) H.P. stating that Smt.R.D.Verma, who at the relevant point of time was functioning as ex-officio Registrar, H.P. Nursing Council, inspected a certain Gandhi Memorial Institute, Pathankot without taking into confidence the President, H.P. Nursing Council, issued letter No HPNRC/93 dated NIL signed on 21.12.1992 (Ext. PW1/E) to the Director, Medical Superintendent, Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute, Pathankot intimating them that the Institute is registered with H.P. Nursing Registration Council, H.P. According to the complaint, this was done by her at her own level without in any manner placing the matter before the Council. The complainant letter then further States that the Council has no 3 jurisdiction in the case since the institute is located in Pathankot (Punjab). The entire episode came to the notice of the department after the retirement of Smt. R.D.Verma when the Director of the Medical Training Institute applied on the prescribed forms for conducting the examination of trainees. These applications as also the draft etc. were not accepted by the department as no record of affiliation was available in the office as Smt. R.D.Verma on her superannuation had not handed over the record despite of number of requests made verbally and in writing. The complaint further proceeds that the registration of Manoj Nursing Training Institute, Pathankot (also managed and run by respondent No.3) was cancelled by the Punjab Nursing Registration Council, Chandigarh w.e.f. 1.12.1989 and the name of Sh. G.D.Sharma has been deleted from the Punjab Medical Council by letter dated 24.4.1991 and the Institute has been debarred from conducting any course of Nursing etc. by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by an order dated 3.5.1990 in CWP. No. 6678 of 1990. A Special Leave Petition filed by the Institute therein was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 24.8.1992. It appears that the same institution was later renamed Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute and Hospital, Pathankot and Dr. G.D.Sharma approached the then Registrar for recognition/affiliation by Himachal Pradesh Nursing Registration Council. 4 Before proceeding with the matter further, I may also note at this juncture that Mr. G.D.Sharma had instituted CWP. No. 1537 of 1993 titled G.D.Sharma Vs State of H.P. and others in this Court with a prayer that a direction be issued that respondent No.2 therein namely, Registrar, Himachal Nursing Registration Council be directed to allow the petitioner to conduct examinations for the nursing courses. This writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 26th July, 1994, holding: “The petitioner has not been able to satisfy this court that the H.P. Nurses Registration Council had cleared the institution run by the petitioner for its recognition/affiliation. Indeed, it could not have been so, for the reason that the Act under which such registration could be permitted, cannot have extra territorial operation, so as to include an institution, which is admittedly run in Pathankot in Punjab State. Thus on a consideration of the facts emerging from a careful scrutiny of the records, it is clearly established that the petitioner has not made out his case that the institute run by him had been granted affiliation/recognition by the HP Nurses Registration Council, which is the only competent authority, exercising its powers under Section 23 (a) of the Act, and the petitioner, therefore, not in order in praying for the relief that the examination should be held regularly in future, in relation to an un-recognized and un-affiliated institute” The writ petition was ultimately dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-. This court also took into consideration the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had approved the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur. The report is placed on record of this case as Ext. PW7/C. 5 According to the evidence on record, the star witness of the prosecution is PW-1 Sh. Ved Parkash who was working as Assistant Secretary (Administration), Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi. He states in his evidence that he was working as Lower Division Clerk and thereafter as Stenographer till 1998. He states that he knows Sh.Amar Singh Verma-respondent No.2 who was posted as Assistant Secretary (Administration) from 1992-95. He was suspended in 1995 and has been dismissed from service during his tenure as Assistant Secretary. This witness was working as his Stenographer and has worked with respondent Amar Singh. Since he had seen this respondent writing and signing documents during the course of his official duties he was well conversant with his hand writing and signatures, and as such he identified the hand writing and signature of Amar Singh Verma. He purportedly proves on record letters Ext.PW1/A to Ext. PW1/Z-5. This fact may not be important as in cross- examination, he states that these documents were taken by him from Sh. S.C.Malhotra, who was Assistant Secretary w.e.f. 22.5.1995 to 30.4.1998. The letters were addressed by Amar Singh Verma in his official capacity as Assistant Secretary. But the important point is that in his cross- examination he admits that respondents No.1 and 3 did not append their signatures on letter Ext.PW1/P. He says that with reference to letter dated 24th October, 1992 the Indian Nursing Council has got no objection for giving recognition/affiliation since the Himachal Nursing Council was 6 satisfied that the requirements of teaching and other facilities were adequate and available with this Institute. He says that this letter was not signed in his presence. He further states in his cross-examination that the Secretary has to pass orders after necessary approval from the executive and General body of the Council. The letter signed by respondent No.3 Sh.G.D.Sharma, were addressed to the Secretary, Indian Nursing Council. Two things would follow on this evidence. Firstly, that this witness though purporting to be the Assistant Secretary of the Indian Nursing Council, has not stated in his evidence as to what are the norms of affiliation. Secondly, he says that affiliation is granted after necessary approval of the executive or the general body of Council. These proceedings have not been placed on record nor there is any word or whisper as to whether such proceedings did, in fact, take place. The witness is also unable to say whether all the correspondences which were produced have been signed by the accused in his presence. PW2 Sh. D.Thanapaul, who was posted as under Secretary Nursing Defence to the Government of Delhi tries to prove on record Ext.PW1/Z-5 which is the inquiry report conducted by him. But in cross-examination, he demolishes the entire case of the prosecution by saying that he was asked to conduct the inquiry on the basis of the record which was handed over to him and that he did not record the statement of any members of the Executive Committee of the 7 said Council. He did not study the rules framed under the Indian Nursing Act. He did not call or examine any person from Gandhi Memorial Institute. In other words, in his cross- examination he admits that the inquiry was conducted in a particular way and taking into consideration only selective evidence. PW-3 Satish Guleria, who was the Personal Assistant to Principal, H.P. Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla. According to him, photo copies of letters mark PW3/A-1 to mark PW3/A-3 and photocopy of the inspection report mark PW3/B bear the signatures of Smt. R.D.Verma respondent. This person on cross-examination says that he has not signed these documents and the record never remained in his custody. PW4 Uttam Singh has proved the documents Ext. PW4/A and Ext. PW4/B on the ground that they were taken into possession by the police and the said documents were handed over by Smt. R.D.Verma. But in his cross-examination he admits that there was no statement of Smt. R.D.Verma was recorded. PW5 Ms. Sneh Lata Negi tries to prove some documents but her statement cannot be accepted as there is nothing to suggest that she was familiar with the hand writing of respondent No.1. In her examination-in-chief she states that the procedure adopted requires the approval of the executive committee/governing council etc. PW-13 Smt. Poonam Lata and PW-14 Smt. Ramnik Lata are two students were supposed to have been 8 hoodwinked by the accused. The prosecution has not made any attempt to show any link of the admission of there students to this institution. Before proceeding with the case further, I must express my anguish in the manner in which the prosecution has pursued this case. It was aware about the fact that G.D.Sharma, had already faced strictures passed by the Panjab and Haryana High Court. He also approached this Court for grant of permission to hold an examination which permission when granted, was set aside by the Supreme Court and his writ petition was dismissed with costs. There is also a report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner who had made certain very damaging observation against this person. Again, nobody gave any thought to the fact that over and above the documents produced, the record of the institution should be seized to show its functioning. Ext.PW1/D can hardly be described to be a document granting affiliation. The provisions of the State Act and the Central Act for recognition/affiliation have not been adverted to nor any attempt has been made despite the evidence on record to produce anything from the Central Council or the State Council to show that pursuant to the so called official volumeness correspondence, recognition has been granted as a result of a conspiracy as alleged. It is the chain of circumstances which establishes either conspiracy or an attempt. That evidence on record is unfortunately lacking in this case. 9 On the question of the authenticity and veracity of the letters, all I need say is that the signatures were denied as rightly noticed by the learned Sessions Judge, no attempt has been made to prove them in accordance with Section 47 of the Evidence Act. In Gulzar Ali Vs. State of H.P. (1998) 2 SCC 192, the Supreme Court dealing with the law on the question of proof of a document held: “10 Reference can be made to two decisions of a three-Judge bench of this Court. First is Ram Chandra V. State of U.P. wherein authorship of some questioned letters has been found on the strength of “various items of external and internal evidence”. The same three-Judge Bench has observed in Mobark Ali Ahmed V. State of Bombay thus: “The proof of the genuineness of a document is proof of the authorship of the document and is proof of a fact like that of any other fact. The evidence relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of direct evidence of a person who saw the document being written or the signature being affixed. It may be proof of the handwriting of the contents, or of the signature, by one of the modes provided in Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. It may also be proved by internal evidence afforded by the contents of the document. This last mode of proof by the contents may be of considerable value where the disputed document purports to be a link in a chain of correspondence, some links in which are proved to the satisfaction of the Court. In such a situation the person who is the recipient of the document, be it either a letter or a telegram, would be in a reasonably good position both with reference to his prior knowledge of the writing or the signature of the alleged sender limited though it may be, as also his knowledge of the subject- matter of the chain of correspondence, to speak to its authorship. 10 11. We find much support from the aforesaid observations to formulate the legal position that the modes of proof envisaged in Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act are not exhaustive for proving the genuineness or authorship of a document.” True that the method of proving genuineness of the document can be alluinde of the provisions of Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act but none the less, it must be remembered that such hand writing can be proved by calling the person who actually has written the document or witnessed it being written. The ordinary methods of proving handwriting are: (1) by calling as a witness a person who wrote the document or; (2) saw it written or signed or; (3) who is qualified to express an opinion as to the handwriting by virtue of Section 47; (4) by a comparison of the handwriting as provided by Section 73. If the signature or handwriting is to be proved by circumstantial evidence, the court should be satisfied that the circumstantial evidence irresistibly leads to the inference that the person in question must have signed or written it. (See: Baru Ram V. Prasani, AIR 1969 SC 93) The facts in the present case are that respondent No.1 is not proved to have signed the documents which purportedly charged him with the offences as alleged. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, PW1 Sh.Ved Parkash in no manner implicates him. The beneficiary seems to be respondent No.3 Sh. Goverdhan Dutt Sharma against whom strictures have been passed by the Punjab and Haryana High 11 Court, and censured in the report submitted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the judgment passed by that Court as also by this Court. Merely putting in large number of witnesses without in any manner caring for the quality of evidence is not sufficient to warrant conviction. In these circumstances, I have no option but to concur with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge and hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged. Before parting, must place on record my anguish at the manner in which the investigation has been conducted. When there were judgments of two High Courts, I fail to comprehend as to what stopped the prosecution from leading ample evidence to establish the offences for which the respondents were charged with. In view of the stricture has been passed against respondent No.3, I direct that in future he may not be given license to run any Institution in Himachal Pradesh. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 22,2010(R)