IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.474 of 2002 Date of Decision : May 2, 2011 State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Ramesh Kumar and Others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant : M/s Ramesh Thakur & J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate Generals. For the Respondents : M/s Shrawan Dogra, S.K. Khanna, and Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocates. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 1st May, 2002, of learned Special Judge, Kullu, whereby respondents Ramesh Kumar, Pushpa Thakur and Tek Singh, who were tried for various offences, falling in the category of forgery, cheating and misconduct by Government servant, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stand acquitted. 2. Prosecution’s case, which led to the charging and the trial of the respondents, may be stated. Certain posts of JBTs, some of which were reserved for various categories, including OBC category, were vacant in Kullu Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… District. Deputy Director (Education), Kullu, sent requisitions to the concerned Employment Exchanges. Names of various persons were sponsored. Respondents Pushpa Thakur and Tek Singh were amongst those whose names had been sponsored. It appears that they applied against the posts reserved for OBC candidates. With the applications, they submitted photostat copies of OBC certificates Ex. PW-1/A (in respect of respondent Pushpa Thakur) and Ex. PW-1/B (in respect of respondent Tek Singh). On the strength of these certificates, they were selected and appointed against the posts reserved for OBC candidates. Lateron, it transpired that the certificates, copies Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B, submitted by respondents Pushpa Thakur and Tek Singh, were forged. Inquiry was conducted by SDO (Civil), Kullu, by whom the aforesaid certificates purports to have been issued. His inquiry revealed that the certificates had not been issued by him and that the same had been forged by respondent Ramesh Kumar, who was those days working as Senior Assistant in the Office of Deputy Director (Education), Kullu, to cause unlawful gain to respondents Pushpa Thakur and Tek Singh and corresponding unlawful loss to the deserving candidates of OBC category as also the Education Department. …3… 3. On the basis of the aforesaid inquiry report, SDO (Civil), PW-1 Shri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, made a complaint for registration of case. Case was registered vide FIR Ex. PW-10/A. 4. During the course of investigation, specimen and admitted writings/signatures of respondent Ramesh Kumar were obtained and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, for comparison with the signatures and writings, on the photostat copies of the aforesaid two certificates Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B and also two entries in Register Ex. PW-7/G, in which names of respondents Pushpa Thakur and Tek Singh are alleged to have been interpolated, by respondent Ramesh Kumar. Handwriting Expert, namely PW-10 Shri H.M. Sexena, though could not express any opinion, with respect to the writings and signatures on the two certificates, he did opine that the entries in Register Ex. PW-7/G, which had been made, after scoring out the original entries, at Serial Nos.3424 and 3431, were in the hand of respondent Ramesh Kumar. 5. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code alongwith relevant papers, was filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, who, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and …4… hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel and going through the record, felt that a prima case, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was made out against the respondents. They were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and were, therefore, ordered to be tried. 6. Prosecution examined 21 witnesses and also relied upon a number of documents to bring the charge home to the respondents. In their statements, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respondents denied having forged the certificates. Also, they denied that the certificates were forged. 7. Learned trial Court concluded that the case of the prosecution did not stand established, beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the respondents were acquitted. 8. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General, as also learned counsel representing the respondents and gone through the record. 9. It may be stated, at the very outset, that there is absolutely no evidence, showing that respondents Pushpa Thakur and Tek Singh do not belong to the OBC category. Also, we find no evidence on record, in support …5… of the allegation that the certificates, copies Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B are forged. Writings and the signatures on the two certificates have not been opined to be in the hand of respondent Ramesh Kumar, who is alleged to have forged these certificates. Certificates purport to have been issued by SDO (Civil), namely PW-1 Shri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary. No attempt was made to get the writings and signatures on these certificates compared with the standard writing/signature of PW-1 Shri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary to prove that the allegedly forged signatures on these certificates are actually not in the hand of PW-1 Shri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary. 10. Respondents Pushpa Thakur and Tek Singh had admittedly applied against the posts reserved for OBC category. They had submitted certificates of OBC, vide applications Ex. PW-2/N (respondent Pushpa’s) and Ex. PW-2/P (respondent Tek Singh’s). These applications were duly diarized in the Diary Register maintained in the office of Deputy Director (Education), Kullu. Their names appear in the list of selected candidates, Ex. PW-7/C, at Serial No.26 (Tek Singh) and Serial No.34 (Pushpa). If that is so, mere interpolation of the names of these two candidates in Register Ex. PW-7/G, which contains the names of not only the selected candidates but of all the candidates, who applied for and were considered for …6… appointment against the vacant posts of JBTs, cannot be of any consequence or relevance. As a result of the abovestated position, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J May 2, 2011(sd) (Rajiv Sharma), J.