IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 26/2005 Date of decision: 01.12.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Raj Kumar ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. J. R. Thakur, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Acquittal of the respondent hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ has been challenged by the State in the present appeal for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 332 and 504 Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that on 25.9.2001 at about 1.10. p.m. PW1 Dharam Singh, Inspector Weights and Measure intercepted 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - the shop of the accused in the presence of his subordinate Ramesh Chand and PW2 Kalyan Singh. The said Inspector demanded certificate of weights and measure from the accused who happened to be present in the shop along with his wife its proprietor. It is alleged that certificate had expired on 23.2.2001, it was not renewed. Thus the complainant challaned her for its violation and also seized the weights and measure kept in the shop. On this, accused felt offended. He allegedly used abusive language and manhandled him thereby preventing him to discharge his official duty as a public servant. 4. The aforesaid incident was reported to the police which ultimately culminated into the present FIR. 5. During investigation, police took into possession, the appointment and posting orders of the complainant. He was also got medically examined on 26.9.2001 and the doctor noticed abrasion on the upper side of the right ear lobule. The probable duration of the injury was within six hours. - 3 - 6. Accused was accordingly charge sheeted, tried and acquitted of the aforesaid offences hence the present appeal. 7. Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective and also that the statement of the complainant stands fully corroborated by the independent witnesses with respect to the incident. If the evidence of the prosecution is re-appraised, the acquittal can be converted into conviction. 8. Contra, Shri J. R. Thakur, learned counsel for the accused supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. Admittedly, the shop of the accused was intercepted by the complainant on 25.9.2001, as alleged, to check the weights and measure certificate. Pertinently, the certificate which was alleged to have been shown to him by the accused was valid up to 23.2.2001 thus, he challaned the wife of the accused who happened to be the proprietor of the shop. Once the official duty performed by the complainant was over, he was not discharging any such duty when he was allegedly beaten - 4 - up/abused. Even PW2 Kalyan Singh stated that he had already completed the official duty, no obstruction was caused therein. 10. Further on the scrutiny of facts emerging from the prosecution evidence it is revealed that most material evidence was the certificate of weights and measure which is alleged to have expired on 23.2.2001, was not taken into possession either by the complainant or during investigation by the police. Whereas the stand taken by the accused is that the said certificate was valid up to the year 2002. PW2 stated that the said certificate was taken into possession by the Inspector whereas PW1 Dharam Singh stated that he did not take any such certificate into possession which is contradictory and probablize the case of the accused in absence of any evidence placed on record. Since the material evidence has not been placed and proved on record, therefore, certainly an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. 11. The complainant stated that weights and measure were taken into possession, but not produced during trial of the case, in order to find out whether the date of its validity had expired or not as it carries a stamp on its base on led. - 5 - 12. Further, I also find that the injury mentioned in the MLC Ext.PW7/A dated 26.9.2001 does not synchronize with the date of the alleged incident for the reasons that the probable duration of the injury was within six hours. If the time of injury is calculated it was caused on 26.9.2001 itself and not 25.9.2001 at the time of alleged incident. 13. The complainant also stated that when he was manhandled, he went away from the spot leaving behind his spectacles in the shop of the accused which was brought by PW5 Kamal Malhotra. Kamal Malhotra aforesaid is also a supplier of goods and he is alleged to have gone to the office of Weights and Measure where he met the complainant and at his request he brought his spectacles from the shop of the accused. The version given by him cannot be said to be independent as he happened to be under the direct control of the complainant. He also failed to give the date on which he had gone to the office of the complainant and brought his spectacles from the shop of accused. This story of spectacles though corroborative piece of evidence did not find mention in the FIR also. Therefore, his evidence is of no help to the prosecution. - 6 - 14. On the reappraisal of the evidence aforesaid, in my opinion, prosecution could not prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the evidence on record, which require no interference. 15. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 16. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him, at any time during the proceedings of this case. December 1, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.