IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. A No. 239 / 2003 Date of decision: 12 . 5. 2010 State of H.P. ….Appellant Versus Khem Chand ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. Surinder Singh J. (Oral) Respondent was tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 Indian Penal Code, in case P.C. No. 253-II/99/96, decided on 25.2.2003, by the learned trial Court. State felt aggrieved by the acquittal and filed the instant appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. Precisely, the case of the prosecution against the respondent has been that on 4.1.1996 at about 3 p.m. complainant Ramesh, the then Excise 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes 2 and Taxation Officer was performing his official duty while sitting in his room in the office. Suddenly, respondent, without his permission entered into his room, occupied one of the chairs in his office, thereafter demanded cancellation of his sale tax number. The complainant requested him that certain formalities were required to be completed. On this, respondent felt enraged and started misbehaving. Thereafter, he is alleged to have used criminal force against him thus he was deterred in discharge of his official duties for about an hour. 4. On 11.1.1996, complainant informed his superior, i.e., the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner by making a written complaint Ext. PW5/A which was later sent to the Police for registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW4/C was registered. During the investigation, police took into possession letter of appointment of the complainant as Excise and Taxation Officer, Mandi and recorded the statements of PW3 Parkash Chand and PW1 Tarsem, Lal both Peons of his office. 3 5. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondent. 6. Respondent was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences but at the end of the trial, he was acquitted on the ground that evidence of the prosecution was self contradictory, not inspiring confidence and that there was undue delay in filing the complainant against the respondent which could be the result of deliberations. 7. Admittedly, the complaint with respect to the alleged incident was filed to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner by the complainant on 11.1.1996, i.e., after about 7 days of the alleged incident for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Further, while examining the statements of the witnesses, I also find that there are material contradictions appearing in the statement of the complainant on the one hand, PW3 Parkash Chand and PW1 Tarsem Lal on the other. 8. Complainant as PW5 stated that respondent entered his office without any permission and occupied the chair, thereafter started misbehaving with him for canceling his sale tax number. Then he called PW3 Parkash Chand 4 and directed him to take the respondent out of his room but when he could not do so, he called another peon PW1 Tarsem Lal but in the presence of PW1 aforesaid, respondent is alleged to have given push to the complainant and threatened both the peons. 9. PW1 Tarsem Lal has not supported the case of the complainant. Thus, he was declared hostile, whereas PW3 Parkash Chand stated that when the complainant pushed bell, PW1 Tarsem Lal had entered before him in the room of the complainant, it was thereafter, he had entered the room. He also stated that where the complainant was sitting generally the persons having official work do sit there. He did not say anything about the push given to the complainant, as alleged by him. He also testified that he requested the respondent to get out of the room and without making any resistance, he had left the room. He also stated that there was no board exhibited out side the room of the complainant that the entry in his room was subject to permission. As already stated above, his statement is contradictory to the complainant that PW1 Tarsem Lal had entered the room prior to PW3 aforesaid. He also did not spell 5 out what part of the official duty he was performing at the relevant time. In view of the aforesaid material contradictions and also the fact that the delay in lodging the complainant stood not satisfactorily explained, acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the appeal sans merit hence dismissed. May 12, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)