IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 599 of 2000 Decided on: 29.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Balwant Singh & Ors. ..…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. H.K. S. Thakur, Advocate, as Amicus- curiae. R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) Mr. H.K.S. Thakur, Advocate is requested to assist the Court as amicus-curiae and he has kindly agreed for the same. 2. The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 30.6.1998, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Shimla, H.P., in Case 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No. 191/2 of 89, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences, under Sections 120 B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution story is that complainant PW-6 Dharam Chand was living with his Uncle Deena Nath and respondent-accused Roshan Lal allegedly purchased a truck by obtaining loan and hypothecated the truck with the bank and executed guarantee deed by producing false person, who personated himself as Deena Nath though Deena Nath never stood guarantor for the loan of the respondent-accused Roshan Lal as said Deena Nath was illiterate and did not know how to sign it and on complaint, FIR Ex.PW3/A was registered and case was investigated and respondents-accused were charged for the aforesaid offences. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses, whereas, the respondents-accused through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 5. PW-1, Jagbhushan, Manager, P.N.B., Solan, PW-2, Trilok Chand Mehra, Manager, P.N.B., Kangra, PW-5, Jagdish Prashad Sharma, Manager P.N.B., PW-8, Kashmir Singh, in whose presence the stamp paper Ext.PW8/B was seized, PW-9 Bakshi Ram, who stated that documents were produced by Deena Nath, PW-11 R.N. Karol, Executive Magistrate and PW-15 Bhagat Ram, Executive Magistrate are witnesses along with PW-3 Deena Nath, PW-4 Rajneet, who also obtained loan independently alongwith respondent-accused Roshan Lal and PW-10 Harbans who issued copy of jamabandi, PW-16 Rulia 3 Ram, who had obtained the specimen signature of respondent- accused Surinder Pal and also obtained some documents Ext. PW1/A and Ext.PW1/B, PW-13 Virender Sharma, Clerk, P.N.B. in whose presence documents were seized by the police, PW-14 D.S.P. Jagdish registered FIR and PW-17 Kangdu Ram who has stated that on 5.3.1983 he had sold stamp paper worth Rs. 15 to Kartar Singh, the other guarantor. PW-18 Sher Singh had given the copy of Rojnamcha on 10.10.82 to the police, are witnesses relevant for prosecution.. 6. PW-3, Deena Nath, has stated that he never stood guarantor for the respondent-accused Roshan Lal. He has further stated that he was asked by respondent-accused Roshan Lal to stood guarantor but he (PW-3) refused and he could not say as to who has taken the copy of jamabandi of his land. PW-4, Ranjeet, who also obtained the loan from P.N.B. Shimla when respondent-accused Roshan Lal obtained the loan. 7. Prosecution has relied upon certificate, issued by PW-7 Vidhi Chand, President Panchayat, which is Ext.PW7/A but merely producing certificate, it cannot be concluded that PW-3 Deena Nath did not know how to sign. Certificate Ext.PW7/A was not written by PW-6 but he has merely signed it. There is delay in filing FIR and the delay is not properly explained. We also note that PW-3 Deena Nath perhaps wanted to save himself from the bank liability, therefore, he had made the false complaint. 8. On appraisal of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, learned Judicial Magistrate has found that the prosecution case is not trustworthy. In these 4 circumstances, after carefully going through the contents of the impugned judgment dated 30.6.1998, we find that there is no scope of any interference in the judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 9. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondents-accused are hereby discharged. 10. Word of appreciation is placed on record for Mr. H.K.S. Thakur, Advocate, who has assisted this Court as amicus-curiae. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 29, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs)