IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.83 of 2002. Date of Decision: 3rd June, 2011. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh .. Appellant. Versus Roshan Lal and others .. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1?. For the appellant : Shri R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral). The State felt aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, hence filed the present appeal against them. 2. Respondents No.1 and 2 are the Patwaris and respondent No.3 is the Pharmacist, whereas the other respondents are beneficiaries. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. As per the case of the prosecution, in the year 1987-1989, the Government of Himachal Pradesh invited the applications for the grant of subsidy under “Calf Rearing Scheme” to small and marginal farmers, agriculturists and labourers and Antoday families in village Jalag, whose annual income was not exceeding ` 6,000/-. 4. Under the aforesaid Scheme accused No.4 to 6 and co-accused Milap Chand, Kishan Singh and Anant Ram, who had died during the pendency of the trial, moved applications through proper channel and these applications were certified by the concerned Patwaris, i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 verifying their income not exceeding ` 6,000/- per annum. On the basis of such information accused No.3 being Veterinary Pharmacist supplied the animal feed on subsidy to them knowing fully well that they were eligible persons. It is alleged that all the respondents conspired and colluded with each other and submitted wrong certificates with respect to their income, thus cheated the Government. - 3 - 5. The matter was reported to the Enforcement Department by one Shri H.S. Rana by making an application Ext.PW3/A. Preliminary enquiry was conducted by PW25 ASI Lal Singh. Finding some substance in the complaint, sent a Ruka Ext.PW25/A, which culminated into FIR Ext.PW27/A. 6. Police took up the investigation and found the complicity of the respondents in the alleged crime. During the investigation, police seized the relevant register and took the specimen signatures of accused Patwaris and sent for the examination to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD). After obtaining the opinion from the GEQD, police presented the Challan against the respondents for the offences aforesaid. 7. Respondents were accordingly charge- sheeted. They denied their guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses to prove its case and at the end of trial they were acquitted, hence the present appeal. 8. Heard and gone through the record. 9. Significantly, in the instant case, the application-forms which are alleged to have - 4 - been submitted by accused persons (farmers) and alleged to be verified by aforesaid Patwaris for the grant of the subsidy under the said Scheme, were not placed and proved by the prosecution. Further, as per the Scheme, agreements were also required to be executed by the beneficiaries in favour of the Government and those agreements were also not proved by the prosecution to fasten the guilt on the respondents. Some of the documents are stated to have been signed by the respondents, but those were not sent for the opinion of the GEQD. 10. PW1 Ashok Kumar, PW4 Rumal Chand, PW20 Udho Ram and PW23 Sarven Kumari did not support the case of the prosecution, whereas PW5 Om Parkash, Patwari, stated that accused Onkar Singh is not having the annual income exceeding ` 1,200/-. 11. Further, Ext.PW11/B also does not show that the income of Tulsi Ram accused did not exceed `6,000/- per annum. According to PW19 Ramesh Chand, Field Kanungo, the income of the respondents was taken into consideration from the record available in the - 5 - year 1994, whereas the applicants are stated to have applied under the said Scheme during the period 1987 to 1989, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly held that the certificates Ext.P.1 to P.7 are of no help to the prosecution. 12. Further, there is no iota of evidence to show any complicity of accused No.3 Pharmacist in the said offences. The witnesses who are examined to prove the charges against him had turned hostile. 13. Thus, on the scrutiny of the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that for the reasons aforesaid, the prosecution has failed to prove the case for the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of the case. (R.B. Misra), Judge. June 3, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.