IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 225 of 2003 Date of Decision: 5th October, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Liaq Ram ….Petitioner. Versus State of HP ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate vice Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The petitioner is accused of offence under Sections 420, 471 and 120-B IPC for defrauding the Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Corporation by verifying fictitious documents. In this case, the specific charge is that there were no persons named Biptu and Swanu and the loan cases pertaining to these persons have been identified by the petitioner. The Courts below, on evidence on record, have convicted the petitioner, who is now in revision before this Court. 2. The evidence on record consists of PW1 Tula Ram, who has stated nothing against the petitioner. His statement was deferred on 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2 the specific request of the prosecution. But when his evidence is considered as recorded, he only exonerates the petitioner. He states that he and the Pardhan (without naming him) were the persons, who identified the loanees. PW3A Pardeep Pushkarna was the Assistant Manager of the Bank, at that time when the loan was sanctioned and he has proved on record the tendered documents which were executed in his presence after due verification and identification of each of the loanees, who not only signed in his presence but were also explained the contents of the loan documents by this witness. PW6 Laiq Ram is another witness of the prosecution, who again proves the innocence of the petitioner as he states that Sawanu Ram, the loanee, is alive and is living with Paras Ram. In these circumstances, it becomes important to ask as to why this loanee has not been examined. The best evidence having been withheld without explanation; an adverse inference against the prosecution is the only natural consequence. The specimen signatures of the petitioner are sought to be proved by PW11, but it is not proved as to in whose presence and in what manner such specimen signatures were obtained. The prosecution has not examined any witness to prove this fact. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that two Courts below have convicted the petitioner, by excluding only evidence which clearly points to the innocence of the petitioner and not any other conclusion. The Courts below have ignored these statements and the fact that best evidence was withheld without any cause. In these circumstances the judgments of the Courts below are against the established principles of law and the conclusions perverse. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is 3 acquitted of the offences, as charged. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge October 5th , 2010(ms)