IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.: 102 of 1999 Date of decision: 24.5.2010 State of H.P. ….Appellant Versus Raj Kumar ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy A.G. For the Respondent: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(Oral). 1. These two appeals by the State are being disposed of by a common judgment since common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that PW-4 Madan Lal had an account in the Kangra Co-operative Bank, Gagret Branch. The prosecution case is that on 8.9.1988, the accused withdrew Rs.9,000/- out of account of Madan Lal; on 16.12.1988 he withdrew 3,900/- from the account of Mandal Lal; on 24.12.1988 he withdrew another sum of Rs.10,000/- out of the account and lastly, on 3.4.1989 he withdrew another sum of Rs.3,000/- from the account of Madan Lal. The prosecution story is that the accused forged the signatures of Madan Lal on 2 the withdrawal forms and withdrew this amount from the account of Madan Lal. 3. A complaint in this regard was lodged by PW-3, Zonal Manager of the bank with the police. According to the compliant, Madan Lal had complained to the Zonal Manager that somebody had withdrawn money out of his account and on enquiry it had been found that it was the accused who had embezzled this amount. The matter was investigated and the specimen writing of the accused were taken and compared with the signatures on the cheques. Other documents were also taken into possession. On completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution was directed to frame the charges separately with respect to separate years. Therefore, it resulted into bifurcation of the trial into more than two trials. Two of the appeals are before us. The learned trial court acquitted the accused on account of the fact that Madan Lal who appeared as PW-4 did not support the prosecution at all. He stated that all the withdrawal forms were filled in and signed by him. Therefore, the question of any forgery does not arise. 5. PW-1 Sham Singh Dhiman, Branch Manager of the Bank also turned hostile. He did not support the prosecution version. He stated that he did not know whether it was part of the duty of the accused to fill the pay book or the cash book. 3 He also did not depose whether the accused had made any entry in the pay order or in the voucher. Therefore, the two main witnesses examined in the case have turned hostile. Entrustment has not been proved and in fact once Madan Lal admitted his signatures, forgery is also not proved. Furthermore, according to the prosecution and as per averments made in the complaint Ext.PW-3/A, at the relevant time Shri Sri Ram was the Branch Manager of the Bank and withdrawal forms dated 24.12.1988 and 3.4.1989 were passed by Kashmir Singh Clerk of the bank. Neither Shri Sri Ram nor Kashmir Singh were examined in the court. This is fatal to the prosecution. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. (Deepak Gupta), J (Rajiv Sharma), J May 24, 2010 (VT)