IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 182 of 2004. Date of Decision: 4th October, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Parshotam Dass ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) The respondent was charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly producing the driving licence before the Registration and Licensing Authority (R&LA) Kalpa at Reckong Peo, which was allegedly fake one. 2. The case of the prosecution against the respondent can be stated thus. In the month of October, 2001 the respondent alleged to have Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - produced his driving licence bearing No.219/90, issued on 1.2.1989 from the R&LA, Chopal, District Shimla for its renewal before the R&LA, Kalpa at Reckong Peo alongwith Form-I with medical fitness of the respondent. The R&LA, Kalpa at Reckong Peo sent letter Ext.P.1 for verification with respect to the genuineness of the said licence to the R&LA, Chopal. In response thereof, they received letter Ext.P.2 dated 2.11.2001 stating therein that the said licence was not issued by their office and the necessary action was warranted against the respondent in accordance with law. The R&LA, Kalpa sent a complaint to this effect to the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur, which was received in the office of the Superintendent of Police on 27.2.2002, which culminated into the present FIR Ext.PW5/A. 3. Police, during investigation, took into possession of the driving licence alongwith application for renewal of the licence and Form-I of the Motor Vehicles Department and the receipt of Rs.60/-. The respondent was arrested, later granted bail and on the completion of the investigation the Challan was prepared against the respondent and it was presented in the Court for his trial. - 3 - 4. The learned trial Court charge-sheeted the respondent. He abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the circumstances which were found attendant upon him. He has admitted having tendered his driving licence for renewal to PW7 Manmohan Sharma, the then R&LA, Kalpa at Reckong Peo, but denied the other circumstances and maintained his innocence. No evidence in defence was led. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the evidence on record. 7. It stands proved that the respondent had appeared for the renewal of his driving licence, but it is not established whether he tendered driving licence in question for its renewal. On the scrutiny of the record I fail to understand as to why either the Court or the learned Prosecutor did not bother to put and exhibit the application and Form-I of the Motor Vehicles Department alongwith the driving licence so produced for its renewal by the respondent. Even PW7 Manmohan Sharma (SDM) simply stated that an application was - 4 - moved for the renewal of the licence, but he did not say that it was the respondent facing the trial who had moved it alongwith annexures. Further, during the investigation of this case the Investigating Officer also observed his callous attitude and did not bother to take into possession the relevant entries for the year 1989-90 of the relevant register from the office of R&LA, Chopal in order to find out whether the entry of the disputed licence found mention therein. This callous approach adopted by the investigating agency, the benefit of which, in the light of other evidence produced on record has to be given to the respondent. Also, for the reason that it only satisfied itself on receipt of the reply Ext.P.2 received from the office of the R&LA, Chopal and did not go further to find out the art and part if any played by the respondent or any other person. 8. In order to prove that the licence in question was not issued by the R&LA, Chopal, only PW4 Hira Singh was examined, who also did not produce the record on the basis of which letter Ext.P.2 was issued to the Licensing Authority to R&LA, Kalpa. Further, in absence of legal evidence on record, his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitting the fact of producing the licence for its renewal, does not fall in line with the prosecution evidence, as the licence - 5 - so tendered was not exhibited during the trial. Therefore, in these circumstances the respondent cannot be convicted solely on its basis. Hence he is entitled for the benefit of doubt. The appeal lacks merit, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 10. Send down the record forthwith. October 4, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)