IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeals No.30, 31, 32 & 33 of 2005 Date of decision : March 18, 2011 Man Singh (In all the four appeals) ….Appellant. Versus State of H.P. (In all the four appeals) …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P. M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Judgments of the trial Court, in all the four cases, make no head or tail. Even the facts have not been stated in sufficient detail, to indicate in what manner the alleged offences of forgery, embezzlement and misconduct, punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, had been committed. Evidence has also not been discussed in detail, but only in a cursory manner. Also, the judgments are incoherent. Learned counsel for both the parties also say that they have not been able to make out, even with reference to the relevant exhibits, as to how did the Judge come to the conclusion that the cases stood proved, beyond reasonable doubt. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …… ..2… 3. As a matter of fact, judgments are cryptic. Only conclusions have been recorded, without indicating, what evidence is there on record to support such conclusion, leave alone analyzing such evidence. For example, report of Handwriting Expert has been made the basis for holding that entries are in the hand of the appellant. There is no reference to the exhibits, containing specimen/admitted signatures/writings of the appellant, with which the questions signatures/writings were compared, what so speak of indicating whether such specimen/admitted signatures/writings had been proved, in accordance with law or not. The reasoning part of the judgments start with the statement that the opinion Ex. PW-20/C of the Handwriting Expert proves that the questioned signature(s)/writings are in the hand of the appellant, without further elaborating with what material the questioned signatures/writings were compared. Alleged specimen/admitted signatures/writings of the appellant have been assumed to be proved. There is no reference to such specimen/admitted writings/signatures in the judgments, leave alone a categoric finding based on evidence that such signatures/writings are proved to be of the appellant. Also, the modus operandi of the appellant, in misappropriating Government money, has not been stated, either in the facts or while discussing the evidence and jumping to the conclusion that he is guilty. …… ..3… 4. Thus, the judgments, in all the four cases, are no judgments in the eye of law. They are, therefore, set aside and the cases are remanded to the trial Court, with a direction to rewrite the judgments, afresh, in all the four cases, separately. Of course, the judgments will be rewritten, after re-hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel for the appellant. In case, the parties or either of them makes an application, for additional evidence, that would be decided before disposing of the cases, finally. 5. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 19th April, 2011. Record of the trial Court be returned, immediately. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. March 18, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J