IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.636 of 2002 Date of decision : October 7, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Rajesh Thakur and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 23rd June, 2002, of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour at Nahan, whereby respondents Rajesh Thakur and R.S. Bhamri, as also one Som Lal (now dead), who were tried for offences, under Sections 420, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. PW-1 Salima had been having a Savings Bank Account No.20087 with State Bank of India, Nahan. She had an amount of Rs.62,608.70 in her said Savings Bank Account on 19th January, 1995, on which date she went to Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the Bank with a debit form Ex. PA, for withdrawal of a sum of Rs.15,000/-. The form had been filled in by PW-2 Anwar Ali, a relative of PW-1 Salima. On 16th September, 1995, PW-1 Salima again went to the Bank for withdrawal of Rs.6,000/-. On that day, she came to know that the amount standing at credit in her aforesaid Savings Bank Account was short by Rs.15,000/-. When she enquired about the said shortage she was told by the Bank people that she had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- on 20th January, 1995. She denied having withdrawn any money on 20th January, 1995. She was told that the matter would be enquired into and for that purpose she should leave her Pass Baook Ex. PE with the Bank authorities. She left her Pass Book with the Bank people. On 19th September, 1995 she, her husband and PW-2 Anwar Ali, were called to the Bank. They were taken to Manager’s room. At that time no customer was there. They were locked in that room and were threatened to sign writing Ex. DF, per which she had withdrawn Rs.15,000/- on 20th January, 1995. Her original Pass Book had also been retained and she was issued a duplicate Pass Book Ex. PC, in which withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- on 19th January, 1995 and similar amount on 20th January, 1995, were shown. PW-1 Salima complained to the Superintendent of Police on the next following day, i.e. on 20th September, 1995 and submitted a written complaint …3… Ex. PB. Case was registered on the basis of the said complaint. 3. During the course of investigation, it came to light that when PW-1 Salima had submitted a debit voucher filled in by PW-2 Anwar Ali on 19th January, 1995, she was made to put her signature on the back of it by respondent Rajesh Thakur and thereafter she was told by the said respondent that the form was defective and another form was required to be filled in. He then filled in another form and obtained the signature of PW-1 Salima on that form. The first form, which was alleged to be defective and which is Ex. PA, had neither been destroyed nor returned to PW-1 Salima. Cashier on 19th and 20th January, 1995 was one Imam Beg, who is neither an accused nor a witness in the case. Respondent R.S. Bhamri was the Deputy Manager on 19th September, 1995 and he allegedly threatened PW-1 Salima, her husband and PW-2 Anwar Ali to sign writing Ex. PB, per which she admitted to have withdrawn an amount of Rs.15,000/- on 19th January, 1995 and similar amount on 20th January, 1995. 4. Som Lal was the Record Keeper, at the relevant time. He was supposed to be having the custody of the second voucher against which an amount of Rs.15,000/- had been withdrawn on 20th January, 1995, as also the other relevant record, including Day Cash Book. From his record, voucher dated 20th January, 1995 as also relevant …4… page from the Day Cash Book, pertaining to 20th January, 1995, were found missing and so he was arrayed as a co- conspirator with respondents Rajesh Thakur and R.S. Bhamri. 5. Trial Magistrate charged the respondents and late Som Lal with offences, under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Salima, PW-2 Anwar Ali and PW-3 K.C. Pandey, an Officer of the Bank, to bring the charge home to the respondents. 7. PW-3 K.C. Pandey admitted that at the time of withdrawal of money from a Savings Bank Account, Pass Book is required to be submitted to the person present at Counter No.10 and before the token authorizing the person to receive the money is issued, entry is made in the Pass Book. At that time it was Imam Beg, who used to sit at Counter No.10. He was also the Cashier at that time. That means Pass Book was required to be submitted to Cashier Imam Beg, before the money was paid. From the statement of PW-3 K.C. Pandey, it can be made out that on 20th January, 1995, Pass Book was shown to Imam Beg, when payment of Rs.15,000/- was made. Said Imam Beg is not arrayed as a co-conspirator, despite the fact that it was he who had made the payment. Entry in …5… the Pass Book Ex. PE dated 20th January, 1995 is also in the hand of Imam Beg, per statement of PW-10 Prakash Ranga, the then Assistant Manager. 8. Merely for the reason that debit voucher of 20th January, 1995 is missing, it cannot be presumed that there was any conspiracy for fake withdrawal of a sum of Rs.15,000/- and the present respondents were party to that conspiracy. The reason is again the same, viz. Imam Beg, who disbursed the amount and made the entry in Pass Book Ex. PE, per deposition of PW-10 Prakash Ranga, is not alleged to be a conspirator. 9. Also, it appears from the testimony of PW-1 Salima that she has not come out with the whole truth. In the complaint, which she made to the Superintendent of Police, i.e. Ex. PB, she stated that she required money, for the withdrawal of which she went to the Bank on 19th January, 1995, to meet household expenses, but while in the witness-box she stated that the money was required by her to discharge the debt which she owed to PW-2 Anwar Ali. From this contradiction, it appears that she needed a sum of Rs.15,000/- for household expenses and another sum of Rs.15,000/- to discharge the debt of PW-2 Anwar Ali. It has been stated both by PW-1 Salima and PW-2 Anwar Ali that debt of Rs.15,000/-, which PW-1 Salima owed to PW-2 Anwar Ali, had been discharged in January, 1995. PW-2 Anwar Ali says that debt was discharged on 19th January, …6… 1995, itself, while Salima says that it was discharged 2-3 days after the withdrawal of money on 19th January, 1995. This contradiction also gives the impression that the money, which she paid to PW-2 Anwar Ali, was withdrawn after the withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- on 19th January, 1995. In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. October 7, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J