IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 311 of 1996 Date of decision: 25.03.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Surinder Kumar and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, dated 10.4.1995, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 109 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint was made by Shri R.S. Negi, Registering and Licencing Authority-cum- S.D.M., Hamirpur, to S.H.O. Hamirpur, for registration of a case. He alleged that today on 28.4.1988, he checked vehicle No. HPR-669 owned by Desh Raj and being driven by one 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Surinder Kumar. On demand, driver produced his licence, the validity of which had been extended from 26.7.86 to 26.7.91. The Registering and Licencing Authority alleged that he came back to his office, checked record of his office and found that no such licence has been renewed or issued in favour of the said person, namely, Surinder Kumar by their office. He accordingly alleged that the licence in question appears to be a forged one and he wrote a letter to S.H.O., Police Station, Hamirpur, to register a case. The case was registered by the police. On investigation, it was found that a forged licence has been issued and renewed by Surinder Kumar and this was done in connivance with the other respondent, namely, Hoshiar Singh. Accordingly, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents, leading to their acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the record of the case and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it is clear that the learned trial Court had doubted about the taking into possession of the licence by the Registering and Licencing Authority and observed that provisions of Section 100(4) were not complied with or that he had not prepared any recovery memo or associated any independent witness. He was the Registering and Licencing Authority who can check the licence and accordingly, there is no question of compliance of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. or preparation of any recovery memo. However, in case the accused doubts that no such licence was ever taken into possession, then it is necessary that there should have been some evidence that may be in 3 the form of note, which could prove that he was present at the spot and had taken driving licence in question in possession. In so far as the validity of the licence in question whether it was issued by the authority or not or whether it was renewed by the authority or not, there is statement of Registering and Licencing Authority PW-5 R.S. Negi. He has stated that he himself checked the record and found that no such licence was issued or renewed. This fact was required to be proved by producing the record from the Registering and Licencing Authority, which would have given an opportunity to the accused to rebut the evidence, if any, as against the accused. No such record has been produced from the office of the Registering and Licencing Authority and no conclusion can be drawn that the licence in question was forged one or it was not renewed. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to produce the licence in question on record and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 25, 2010 Judge (BSS) 4