HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 372 OF 1996 DECIDED ON: 07.04.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant Versus Shri Bachan Singh ………Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?.1 For the Appellant: Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral) This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,, 1st Class, Harmirpur, H.P. dated 10.04.1995, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed as against him under Sections 420/468/471 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent produced an R.C. of Truck No. HPH-5016 before Shri Sanjeev Gupta, the then Registering and Licensing Authority for making an entry of hire purchase agreement in the R.C. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. The Registering and Licensing Authority observed that the vehicle was not registered in their office and does not bear any signatures of the then Registering and Licensing Authority and had observed that forged R.C. has been produced. The case was registered under Sections 420,468,471 IPC as against the respondent and after conclusion of the investigation, the challan was filed and after trial, the respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court, hence, appeal filed by the State of H.P. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The learned trial Court has observed that the police had not taken specimen signatures of the respondent and sent the documents to the Examiner of Questioned Documents to determine whether the forgery was done by the respondent. It is not necessary that forgery should have been done by the accused himself. He might have used the services of some other person to forge the entries in the R.C. The essential ingredients of Sections 465 and 471 are that he should have the knowledge that it was a forged one and he used the said document, for which there is no evidence on record. The learned trial Court observed that there is no such evidence available on record to hold that the respondent had the knowledge that it was a forged document and he used it for his own benefit. - 3 - 6. In view of the above, there is no evidence to hold that the respondent had knowledge that it was a forged document and he used it for his own benefit. There is no evidence on record to reverse the findings of the learned trial Court. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubts and the findings of the learned trial Court cannot be termed as perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, I, accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall also stand discharged. (V.K. Ahuja), Judge April 7, 2010 *BRB*