IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 206 of 2007 Date of Decision: 29.04.2010 __________________________________________________________ Smt. Anita Devi. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents 1 to 4: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents 6 & 7: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the election of Pradhan of Gram Panchyat Dari-Bhari on the ground that her husband was an encroacher of Government land. To reach this conclusion, Sub Divisional Officer as also the Deputy Commissioner relied upon two documents i.e. Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B which are the application forms for regularization of some purported encroachment made by Sh. Sukh Ram, husband of the petitioner. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. A prayer was made in an application filed under Section 73 of the Evidence Act by the petitioner herein before the Deputy Commissioner for sending these documents to a Handwriting Expert on the ground that these were never signed by her husband and that they did not bear his signatures. The application was rejected on tenuous grounds, namely, that documents already stand exhibited and they have come from the Copying Agency of Tehsil Jhandutta which perse attracts the presumption of truth of what is contained therein. 3. Fraud and forgery are serious matters. If the petitioner is denying the signatures of her husband on the application forms, the Deputy Commissioner should have obtained the opinion of the Handwriting Expert whether these documents were infact signed by the husband of the petitioner or they were forgeries as pleaded. The conclusion was obvious. In case it was found that the petitioner is making wrong averments, she would have faced the consequences of filing false evidence before a statutory authority. One other important aspect which required consideration was that these documents pertained to the husband of the petitioner who was not a party to the petition and a pronouncement on the authenticity of these documents was a serious encroachment of his rights. 4. I am not going to other aspect of the matter as the elections have already been set-aside and fresh elections have also taken place and new elections are due in December, 2010. However, all that I need say is that Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B will not be used against the petitioner in any subsequent proceedings without giving her chance to prove that these documents are forged/fake and did not bear the signatures of her husband. In case her plea is found false, necessary consequences in accordance with law shall follow. This 3 Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There is no order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. All the interim order(s) stand vacated. April 29, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge