IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 387 of 1998. Decided on: 17.05.2010. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Balbir Singh. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for the appellant. For the respondent : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deepak Gupta, Judge(Oral) : This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 31.03.1998, delivered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru in Criminal Case No.11/2 of 1993, whereby the accused has been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 420, 511 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Complainant Balwant Singh (PW-4) lodged a complainant with the Police to the effect that accused Balbir Singh had got issued a notice dated 03.06.1991, wherein it was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.Yes. - 2 - alleged that the complainant had issued a cheque of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the accused. This cheque, on presentation, was dis-honoured for want of sufficient funds. According to the complainant, he had not issued any such cheque and suspected that the accused forged his signatures. On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R. was lodged. During the course of investigation, it was found that the accused and the complainant had been doing joint business in the years, 1973- 74 and had opened a joint account in the bank. According to the prosecution, a cheque-book for such joint account was issued. This cheque-book remained in the possession of the accused. The accused himself issued a cheque out of this cheque-book in his favour by forging the signature of the complainant. However, in the cheque-book, the words “Amrawati orchards” were written with a view to indicate that the cheque had been issued from the personal account of the complainant. On this basis, the accused was charged. 3. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the cheque had been issued by the accused in his own handwriting. Admittedly, the handwritings of the accused and the complainant were taken before the Executive Magistrate Shri S.M. Justa (PW-1). The specimen signatures alongwith disputed signature on the cheque Ex.-PW1/A were sent to the Examiner of Questioned Documents, who vide his report stated that he could not express any definite opinion about the disputed signatures. Surprisingly, this report has not been proved on record by the prosecution, therefore, the report itself cannot be looked into. - 3 - 4. The learned trial court visually examined the cheque as well as the admitted handwritings to make a comparison himself, but he was not able to form a definite opinion. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the cheque-book in question relates to the joint business of the accused and the complainant, the prosecution has miserably failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove that the cheque-book of the joint account remained in possession of the present accused. In fact, the version of the prosecution stands belied from the fact that the complainant while appearing as PW-4, admitted that cheques Exhibits RB, RC, RD and RE were issued by him out of the same cheque-book and all these cheques were signed by him. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge May 17, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 -