IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.342 of 2003 Decided on : March 5, 2011 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Ashok Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : M/s N.K. Thakur and Jagdish Thakur, Advocates. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 17th December, 2002, of learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, by which respondent Ashok Kumar, who was tried for offences, under Sections 409, 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution is that in the year 1991-92, respondent Ashok Kumar was holding the Office of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kuthera. On 10th March, 1992, he withdrew a sum of `9,650/- from H.P. State Co- operative Bank, Ghumarwin. Again, on 26th March, 1992, he withdrew `15,000/- from the said Bank. Thus, he had Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… a sum of `24,650/- with him. For a month or so, he did not account for any portion of the aforesaid amount of money. Thereafter, he prepared bogus record, indicating that a sum of `14,934/- had been spent on payment of labour charges to various persons, who had been engaged, in connection with different Panchayat works. Bogus Muster Rolls Ex. PA, Ex.PB, Ex. PU and Ex. PV were prepared. Sixteen names in those Muster Rolls, were either fictitious or the persons with those names had not been engaged nor had they been paid any wages. 3. On a complaint received by the Anti-Corruption Department, case was formally registered, vide FIR Ex. PW-29/A. During the course of investigation, specimen signatures of those of the persons, who were shown to have been engaged as labourers, but actually had not been so engaged and by whom Muster Rolls purport to be signed, were obtained. Similarly, specimen thumb impressions of those of the persons, who were shown to have been disbursed wages, after they affixed their thumb impressions, were also obtained. Specimen signatures and the fingerprints, so obtained, were sent to the Handwriting Expert and the Fingerprint Expert, for comparison with the purported signatures/thumb impressions on the Muster Rolls. 4. Specimen signatures and writings of the respondent and other persons, by whom the Muster Rolls …3… purport to be verified, i.e. PW-1 Bhangu, PW-2 Damodari Devi and PW-10 Rakesh Kumar, Secretary of Gram Panchayat, were also taken. Those specimen writings and signatures were sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with their purported signatures and writings on the Muster Rolls, aforesaid. 5. Handwriting Expert opined that writings and signatures on the Muster Rolls, purporting to be of the abovenamed witnesses, tallied with their specimen writings and signatures. 6. On completion of investigation, report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed in the Court. 7. Trial Court supplied copies of the report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the documents filed therewith, to the respondent and after hearing the prosecution and the defence counsel, felt that a prima facie case was made out. Consequently, the respondent was charged with the aforesaid offences. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and was, therefore, put on trial. 8. Prosecution examined 30 witnesses to bring the charge home to the respondents. Witnesses examined included 15 persons, whose names figured in the Master Rolls as labourers, but who allegedly denied they were engaged and paid the wages. They are PW-3 …4… Jagdish Kumar, PW-4 Bansi Ram, PW-5 Dalip Singh, PW-6 Shakti Singh, PW-13 Rattan Lal, PW-14 Kanshi Ram, PW- 15 Pal Singh, PW-16 Besaria Ram, PW-17 Hem Raj, PW-19 Prakash Chand, PW-20 Chaman Lal, PW-21 Tulshi Ram, PW-22 Joginder Singh and PW-25 Pritam Singh. At the end of the trial, learned Special Judge concluded that the case of the prosecution was not proved, beyond reasonable doubt, and consequently acquitted the respondent. 9. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 10. Majority of the abovenamed witnesses stated that they worked as labourers and had also received wages. Prosecution cross-examined them with the leave of the Court. However, there is no other evidence or even opinion of Handwriting Expert or Fingerprint Expert to support the prosecution version that these persons did not receive the wages or their purported signatures or purported thumb impressions are not genuine. These witnesses are PW-3 Jagdish, PW-4 Bansi Ram, PW-5 Dalip Singh, PW-6 Shakti Singh, PW-13 Rattan Lal, PW-14 Kanshi Ram, PW-15 Pal Singh, PW-17 Hem Raj and PW-25 Pritam Singh. 11. Out of the remaining four witnesses, PW-16 Besaria Ram admitted his signature on Muster Roll Ex. PB, …5… though he denied having received the payment. His uncorroborated statement that he did not receive the money cannot be said to be sufficient evidence to conclude that he had not been paid his wages or that he had not been engaged as a labourer. Other three witnesses, namely PW-18 Prakash Chand, PW-19 Ramesh Chand and PW-22 Joginder Singh stated that neither they were engaged as labourers nor were they paid any wages and that their purported thumb impressions/signatures were not genuine. Their statements are not corroborated by any other evidence. 12. Specimen fingerprints of PW-18 Prakash Chand were taken during the investigation. The same are Ex. PW-27/A-1 and Ex. PW-27/A-2. There is nothing on the record, indicating that these thumb impressions were sent to the Fingerprint Expert, for comparison with the purported thumb impression of this witness on Muster Roll Ex. PU. That means there is no opinion evidence to corroborate the testimony of the witness and, therefore, his bald statement cannot be taken to be sufficient proof of his denial that neither he received the money nor put the thumb impression. 13. As regards the other two witnesses, namely PW-19 Ramesh Chand and PW-22 Joginder Singh, their specimen signatures were also taken, for comparison with their purported signatures on Muster Rolls Ex. PB and …6… Ex. PV, respectively. However, there is no evidence if the comparison was got done from any Handwriting Expert or not. Their statements also remain uncorroborated and, therefore, it cannot be said that they in fact did not work as labourers and also did not receive the money, reflected against their names in the aforesaid two Muster Rolls. 14. There is no other evidence, suggesting that the abovenamed labourers had not been engaged on the works mentioned in the Muster Rolls. Not only this, also there is no evidence that the works, mentioned in the Muster Rolls, had not been executed during the period, indicated in those Muster Rolls. As a matter of fact, one of the witnesses of the prosecution itself, namely PW-11 Piar Singh, Junior Engineer, very categorically stated that the works, mentioned in the Muster Rolls, had been executed and completed. In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J March 5, 2011(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J