IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.495 of 2003 Date of decision : March 4, 2011 State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Shashi Pal and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, 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 Respondents : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 25th June, 2003 of learned Special Judge, whereby respondents Shashi Pal and Hans Raj Mehta, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 465, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stand acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution is that respondent Shashi Pal, while working as Forest Guard in Kandi area Project at Nalagarh, had been issued various Muster Rolls, for getting executed different works, by engaging labourers. Those Muster Rolls are Ex. PA, Ex. PH, Ex.PJ, Ex.PK and Ex. P-35. In Muster Roll Ex. PA, six fake entries Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… were made, in the names of Tarsem Lal (PW-3), Mangat Ram (PW-1), Sita Ram (PW-2), one Ram Rakha, one Ranjeet Singh and one Dharam Pal, alongwith several other persons, showing their engagement and disbursement of a sum of `3,520/- to them, though in fact the above-named persons had not been engaged nor had they been paid any amount of money. Similarly, it was alleged that in Muster Roll Ex. PH, two persons Shyam Lal (PW-8) and one Ram Saran alias Sarna were shown to have been engaged, alongwith several other persons, and a sum of `1,240/- was shown to have been disbursed to them, but actually the entries were fake and those persons had neither been engaged nor were they paid any amount of money. 3. As regards Muster Roll Ex. PJ, allegation was that Mehar Chand (PW-7), one Rajber Singh and one Hari Ram had not been engaged, but their names were falsely incorporated in the Muster Roll and a sum of `1,860/- was shown to have been disbursed to them. In Muster Roll Ex. PK, names of seven persons were stated to have been falsely recorded and a sum of `4,040/- was shown to have been paid to them. The names are Gubaksh Singh (PW- 4), Noora (PW-5), Asha Ram (PW-10), Ram Krishan (PW- 11), one Gurdev, one Ram Karan and one Jai Ram. …3… 4. PW-10 Asha Ram was shown to have worked at two sites, during the same period, in two Muster Rolls, i.e. Ex.PK and Ex. P-35. 5. During the course of investigation, specimen signatures of those of the persons, alleged to be falsely named as labourers and whose purported signatures appear in the Muster Rolls, were taken. Similarly, thumb impressions of those of the falsely named persons, by whom payment was shown to have been taken, after putting their thumb impressions, were also taken. The specimen signatures and thumb impressions, together with the purported signatures and thumb impressions of those persons on the Muster Rolls, were sent to Handwriting Expert, PW-23 Shri R.K. Jain and the Fingerprint Bureau. 6. Handwriting Expert PW-23 Shri R.K. Jain gave definite opinion, which is Ex. P-70, that purported signature of PW-6 Gurbakash Singh, on Muster Roll Ex. PK, against Sr. No.24, which is marked Q-1, did not tally with his specimen signatures on paper sheets Marked S-1 to S-3, which are Ex. P-15 to P-17. Similarly, Fingerprint Expert, vide report Ex. PX, gave definite opinion that purported thumb impression marked Q-9, against Sr. No.11 on Muster Roll Ex. PK, matched with one of the specimen fingerprints, Marked-II on Ex. P-49, which was the specimen fingerprint of respondent Shashi Pal. …4… 7. Role played by the second respondent, namely Hans Raj Mehta, is that Muster Rolls were verified by him and that he and also a Range Officer, by the name of Sant Ram, who died during the investigation of the case, had conspired with respondent Shashi Pal, Forest Guard, in mis-appropriating the Government money, by forging the Muster Rolls. 8. On completion of investigation and after obtaining sanction from the Disciplinary Authorities of the respondents, challan was prepared and filed in the Court of learned Special Judge. 9. Respondents denied that the entries in the Muster Roll were fake or that forgery had been committed. Also, it was denied that the persons, who had allegedly been falsely named in the Muster Rolls, were not actually employed or had not been disbursed the wages. 10. Trial Court acquitted the respondents, holding that the case of the prosecution did not stand established, beyond reasonable doubt. 11. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General and learned counsel representing the respondents and gone through the record. 12. Out of 24 persons, whose names are alleged to have been falsely incorporated in the Muster Rolls, prosecution examined eight as witnesses. They are PW-1 …5… Mangat Ram, PW-2 Sita Ram, PW-3 Tarsem Lal, PW-5 Noora Ram, PW-6 Gurbaksh Singh, PW-8 Shyam Lal, PW- 10 Asha Ram and PW-11 Ram Krishan. Prosecution also examined one Mehar Chand, but his name does not figure in any of the aforesaid five Muster Rolls. 13. PW-1 Mangat Ram did state that he never worked as labourer nor did he receive any money and that his purported signature Marked Q-3, on Muster Roll Ex. PA, was not in his hand, but the Handwriting Expert expressed his inability to give any opinion, with regard to his signature, per report Ex. P-70. Thus, his statement remains uncorroborated. 14. PW-2 Sita Ram also stated that his signature against entry at Sr. No.6, in Muster Roll Ex. PA, was not genuine and that he had not received any payment nor did he work, but his purported signature had not been got compared with his specimen signatures. Therefore, his testimony also remains uncorroborated. 15. PW-3 Tarsem Lal denied having worked as labourer or having received any wages. He also denied having thumb impressed the Muster Roll, Ex. PA. His specimen thumb impressions were sent to the Fingerprint Bureau, but no opinion has been expressed by the Bureau, vide report PX, whether the purported fingerprint of this witness is genuine or forged. So is the case with regard to PW-5 Noora, because report Ex. PX of …6… Fingerprint Expert is to the effect that purported thumb impression of this witness, which is Marked Q-10, is not comparable, on account of being smudged. 16. PW-6 Gurbaksh Singh, though did say that he worked, but denied having received the wages and having signed Muster Roll Ex. PK. His purported signature on the Muster Roll, Marked Q-1, was sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with his specimen signatures on Ex. P-15 to P-17. Handwriting Expert, namely PW-23 Shri R.K. Jain, vide opinion Ex. P-70, has reported that signature Marked Q-1 is not in the hand of the person who wrote specimen signatures on Ex. P-15 to Ex. P-17. Thus, there is definite opinion that the purported signature of PW-6 Gurbaksh Singh, on Muster Roll Ex. PX, is different from his specimen signatures. 17. Purported specimen signatures of PW-6 Gurbakash Singh on Ex. P-15 to Ex. P-17 have not been proved. These signatures were allegedly taken in the presence of PW-14 Shri J.S. Sharma, Tehsildar. The witness stated that some persons were produced before him by the police, for taking their specimen signatures, who were not known to him. He did not say as to who had identified those persons. Also, he stated that certificates, regarding the taking of specimen writings of those persons and their identification, were typed in another room by the Typist, at the instance of the Deputy …7… Superintendent of Police. Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW-22 Jai Lal, when in the witness box, did not say that he had identified Gurbaksh Singh to PW-14 Shri J.S. Sharma, at the time of taking of his specimen signatures. Therefore, the opinion evidence of PW-23 Shri R.K. Jain is of no avail to the prosecution. 18. PW-8 Shyam Lal denied his signature Marked Q-63/4 on Muster Roll Ex. PH. He stated that he did not know how to write. The witness, however, did not deny having worked and received the wages. Rather, he very categorically stated that he had received the wages. 19. PW-10 Asha Ram stated that he does not thumb impress the documents required to be executed by him, but signs his name. He denied his purported thumb impression Marked Q-9 on Muster Roll Ex. PK and also denied having received the money. He stated that in fact during the same period he was engaged elsewhere by respondent Shashi Pal. Muster Roll Ex. P-35 shows that the witness had been engaged at another site, during the same period and he received the wages, by putting his signature on that Muster Roll. 20. Opinion of the Fingerprint Expert, with regard to the purported thumb impression of PW-10 Asha Ram, which is Marked Q-9 on Ex. PX, is that this thumb impression matches with the specimen thumb impression Marked-II on Ex. P-49. …8… 21. According to the prosecution, the aforesaid specimen thumb impression is that of respondent Shashi Pal and it was taken in the presence of PW-13 Lalit Sharma, Naib Tehsildar, Solan. PW-13 Lalit Sharma stated that some persons were produced before him, for taking their specimen thumb impressions, by PW-22 Jai Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police and those persons were identified by the said Deputy Superintendent of Police. There is a typed certificate on Ex. P-49 that the thumb impressions are of respondent Shashi Pal, who had been identified by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the cross-examination, PW-13 Lalit Sharma stated that the certificate had been got typed by the police from the typist and it was thereafter that the specimen fingerprints of several persons, who were produced by the police, were taken. That means no reliance can be placed on the certification, appearing below Ex. P-49. Not only this, PW- 22 Jai Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, did not say that he had identified respondent Shashi Pal to the Naib Tehsildar, at the time of taking of his thumb impressions. In view of the abovestated position, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J March 4, 2011(sd) ( Kuldip Singh ), J.