HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 745 of 2002 Decided on: 19.11.2009 State of Himachal Pradesh ……… Appellant. Versus Mohd.Shahid and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For respondents No.1 and 2: Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For respondent No.3: Mr.Amar Deep, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, on 16.9.2002, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 20, 23, 25 & 27 of the Telegraph Act and Sections 380 & 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated the facts of the case are in December, 2000, respondent No.1 approached the complainant Ram Gopal, Mechanic posted in Telephone Exchange at Surla, and offered him illegal gratification for giving an opportunity to the accused to use the ISD _____________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - facility at the Telephone Exchange. Respondent No.1 Mohd.Shahid alongwith respondent No.2 Abdul Majid offered him a sum of Rs.12,000/- for this purpose. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of the higher authorities and to the Superintendent of Police and to ascertain this question as to whether the respondents are involved in some anti national activities, they got provided ISD facility at the Telephone Exchange, which was kept under observation by the police, who also provided a tape recorder. Respondents No.1 and 2 used the ISD facility at the Telephone Exchange subsequently by having talks in Arab countries and at other places and as such they caused loss to the Telephone Department. A police party headed by Inspector Bhagmal raided the Telephone Exchange on the night intervening 29th/30th August, 2001 and respondent No.1 was caught red handed while using the ISD facility illegally. The telephone sets were taken in possession by the Investigating Officer alongwith PVC wire and on investigation, it was found that respondents No.1 and 2 had used the ISD facility illegally and unauthorizedly with the help of respondent No.3, who was posted as Mechanic in the Telephone Exchange during the relevant period. During investigation, the complainant also produced a sum of Rs.12,000/-, which was offered to him by respondents No.1 and 2 and the same was taken in possession. After investigation, the challan was filed against the respondents, who were charged, as detailed above, and the trial was conducted by the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents. - 3 - 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, it is clear that the complainant in this case was Ram Gopal, Mechanic, who was approached by respondents No.1 and 2 for using the ISD facility unauthorizedly and they also offered him a sum of Rs.12,000/-. The complainant had reported the matter to the police as well as to the higher authorities and a trap was laid. PW-10 Inspector Bhagmal apprehended respondent No.1 using this facility. The complainant has been examined as PW-1 and he narrated the facts as to how he was approached by the respondents and offered money. Two sets of tape were installed in the Telephone Exchange to tap the conversation of the accused persons and this ISD facility was being used when they were apprehended on the night of 29th/30th August, 2001. The other witness, namely, the Investigating Officer Inspector Bhagmal, who laid the trap, apprehended the respondents, effected recoveries and found the respondents using the ISD facility in connivance with respondent No.3, the then Mechanic in the Telephonic Exchange, has been examined as PW-10, who stated that he cannot say as to whether the accused persons, in fact, made any telephonic calls from the Telephone Exchange during this period and had also stated that the main purpose of their investigation was to ascertain whether the accused persons are involved in anti national activities. He further stated that nothing in this behalf was found - 4 - against the accused persons and did not find any direct link of respondents No.1 & 2 with respondent No.3 Gian Chand. There is nothing on the record to show as to how much loss was caused to the Department or how the offence of cheating was committed by the accused persons. The evidence led by the prosecution did not establish the case of the prosecution as against the three respondents and the findings of the learned trial Court, on appraisal of the judgment passed by it, cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/State of H.P., which is dismissed acc ordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. November 19, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.