IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.Appeal No. 362 of 2003. Decided on: 23.2.2011. ___________________________________________________________ State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Ashok Kumar & another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant A.G. For the respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 28.3.2003 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 83/2 of 1997, titled State of H.P. versus Ashok Kumar and another whereby the respondents herein who were accused before the learned Court below and shall hereinafter be referred to as such and denoted as A1 and A2, respectively, were tried for the offences under Sections 167, 193, 120-B and 420 IPC and were ultimately acquitted. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution was that during the year 1996 A1 Ashok Kumar was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle Mangal, Tehsil Arki. On or about 26.7.1996 he along with A2 Rajender Kumar and discharged co-accused Gulshan Kumar and Jitender Kumar conspired to prepare incorrect copy of Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 in respect of Khewat No. 14 of Mauza Scor wrongly showing the names of the aforesaid accused Gulshan Kumar, Jitender Kumar and Rajender Kumar as co- owners in the column of ownership along with other co-owners, whereas, actually they were not co-owners. It was further alleged that A1 Ashok Kumar had issued an agriculturist certificate dated 31.7.1996 in favour of the aforesaid accused showing them as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 agriculturist in Mauza Scor. Thereafter, on the basis of the said agriculturist certificate, the aforesaid accused got executed a sale deed dated 17.8.1996 in their favour at Nalagarh pertaining to the land bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 25/26, Khasra No. 243, measuring 1 bigha 3 biswa, situate at Mauza Chuhu, Tehsil Nalagarh from Sub Registrar, Nalagarh. This fact was detected when Tehsildar, Nalagarh enquired from the office of Tehsildar, Arki about the genuineness of the agriculturist certificate in question. On receipt of letter from Tehsildar, Nalagarh, his counterpart at Arki verified the record and found that the certificate was not genuine and he informed SDO (Civil), Nalagarh about the same who in turn informed the Deputy Commissioner, Solan who made complaint Ext. PW10/A to the Superintendent of Police, Solan for registration of a case against the accused. Consequently, FIR was registered. 3. On completion of investigation, the accused were sent up to face trial. However, at the stage of arguments on charge, whereas, A1 Ashok Kumar was charged under Sections 120-B, 167 and 193 IPC and A2 Rajender Kumar under Sections 120-B, 193 and 420 IPC, co-accused Gulshan Kumar and Jitender Kumar were discharged vide order dated 27.4.2001. 4. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 32 witnesses. On close of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined by the learned trial Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein their case was that of total denial. Though initially they stated that they intended to lead evidence yet lateron they stated that no such evidence was to be led by them in their defence. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court proceeded to acquit both the accused, as already noticed. 5. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondents- accused and gone through the record. 3 6. The two incriminating documents on the basis of which the foundation for the prosecution case was laid are the agriculturist certificate dated 31.7.1996, Ext. PW-30/4 and copy of Jamabandi, Ext. PW-30/B said to have been prepared and issued by A1 Ashok Kumar. It shall be pertinent to state at the very outset that the impugned judgment dated 28.3.2003 rendered by the learned trial Judge is based mainly on the premise that the original documents of the case were not sent to the Handwriting Expert for examination and only photo copies thereof were sent. However, I am constrained to say that a perusal of the record would go to show that the position is entirely otherwise. PW-30 Dr. B.A. Vaid is the Handwriting Expert. A perusal of his statement coupled with opinion Ext. PW-30/77 read with reasons in support thereof Ext. PW-30/78 and the documents examined by him would go to show that all the original documents including agriculturist certificate Ext. PW-30/4 and Jamabandi Ext. PW-30/5 were in fact sent for examination to him and he had examined those very documents and submitted his opinion. 7. In view of the above, this Court is left with no other alternative except to set aside the impugned judgment dated 28.3.2003 being based on totally erroneous premise and approach and remit the case to the learned trial Court for decision afresh from the stage of final arguments in accordance with law by taking into consideration the entire evidence on record. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that as the case relates to the year 1997, every endeavour shall be made by the learned trial Judge to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 21st March, 2011. 8. The appeal stands disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. February 23, 2011. (cr) 4