IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 260 of 2001. Reserved on: 27.02.2008. Decided on: 1.3.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh. … … Appellant. Versus Amar Dass alias Amar Singh. … … Accused/Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Anil Kumar Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the Accused/Respondent: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was prosecuted in case No.28/2 of 2000/95 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli at Solan under Section 420 I.P.C. and was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on 18.12.2000. Hence, this appeal by the State Government against the judgment dated 18.12.2000. The brief facts as gathered from the judgment of the trial Court necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that in the month of October, 1993, accused Amar Dass had cheated Hari Krishan by promising jobs to his relatives Rajinder Kumar and Ashok Kumar and Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? thereby dishonestly induced Shri Hari Krishan Mehta to pay Rs.12,000/- and 24,000/- respectively for that purpose. The matter was reported to the police by the complainant and the investigation was carried out and consequently the challan was put in the Court. The prosecution has examined six witnesses to prove its case against the accused. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused was acquitted on 18.12.2000. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused and the findings recorded by the learned trial court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood had supported the judgment dated 18.12.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. The most glaring gap in the case of the prosecution is that the Investigating Officer, who had investigated the case, has not been produced as a witness. It was essential for the prosecution to produce and examine the Investigating Officer. PW-6, S.K. Saxena, the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents has not given his opinion about the signatures of the accused. There are material contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to the manner in which the money was received by the accused. PW-1 had stated that the amount of Rs.12,000/- was paid to the accused in the presence of Braham Dass and Krishan Chauhan, but PW-2 had shown his ignorance about the denomination of the currency notes and also the source from which a sum of Rs.12,000/- had been withdrawn by the complainant. PW-2 had admitted that the accused never came to the bank in his presence. PW-1 had stated that he had written the details of Rs.24,000/- paid to the accused in his diary, but the diary was not produced by the prosecution. PW-3 was declared hostile. Even the statements of PW-1 and PW-3 do not reconcile. PW-1 had stated that Rs.12,000/- were handed over to the accused in the presence of Braham Dass. However, Braham Dass (PW-3) had stated that the amount of Rs.36,000/- was paid to the accused in his presence. This Braham Dass also did not know the denomination of currency notes, date and month of the payment. Since the prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer and there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. The accused has been rightly acquitted by the trial Court by giving a well reasoned judgment. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent-accused are discharged. March 01, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge.