IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.471 and 504 of 2003 Decided on: March 8, 2011 Cr. A. No. 471 of 2003 Kulbinder Singh and another Vs. State of HP Cr. A No. 504 of 2003 B.D. Verma Vs. State of HP Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellants : M/s Shrawan Dogra and Neeraj Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, because in both of them, the same judgment, which is dated 28.10.2003, of learned Special Judge, whereby the appellants have been convicted of offences, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120-B and Section 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption of Act and awarded varying sentences for the said offences, has been challenged. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Police filed a case against three appellants, in both the appeals, and one Sukh Dev Raj, alleging that appellant Kulbinder Singh, who had earlier been serving as Constable in Police Department and was relieved on acceptance of his resignation, in connivance with appellant B.D. Verma, who was working as Superintendent Grade-II in the Office of Director General of Police (DGP), appellant Kartar Singh, who was working as Gunman with the DGP and one Sukh Dev Raj also a Gunman, with an Officer on DGP’s establishment, managed to forge letter Ext. PW3/E. to get reemployment himself. 3. Admitted facts are that appellant Kulbinder Singh was recruited as Constable in the year 1989. In February, 1991, he applied for leave on the ground of sickness of his mother, which was not sanctioned, upon which he submitted 24 hours notice of resignation. That resignation was accepted. On 20th May, 1994, appellant Kulbinder Singh made a representation to DGP, copy Ext. PW3/A, seeking reemployment. That representation was rejected on 25.8.1994, vide communication Ext. PW1/D. Appellant Kulbinder Singh then made representation dated 17.9.1994 to Secretary (Home). That was also rejected and communication dated 17.10.1994 (Ext. PW1/B) was …3… addressed to him, conveying the decision of the Secretary (Home) about rejection of his representation. 4. After rejection of his representation by the Secretary (Home), vide communication Ext. PW1/B, appellant Kulbinder Singh allegedly approached appellant B.D. Verma, who was then working as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of DGP. He approached him through Constables appellant Kartar Singh and appellant Sukh Dev Raj, who were working as Gunmen with the DGP. All the four conspired to forge letter in the name of Under Secretary (Home) addressed to DGP. Such a letter was then forged The same is Ext. PW3/E and it is dated 24.11.1994. On the basis of this forged letter, in which there is a direction to DGP to reemploy appellant Kulbinder Singh, matter was processed in the office of DGP by appellant B.D. Verma and the aforesaid letter Ext. PW3/E was endorsed to Commandant, 1st Battalion, Junga, from whose establishment appellant Kulbinder Singh had been relieved. Acting on that endorsement, the said Commandant reemployed appellant Kulbinder Singh. 5. Some time in July or August, 1995, it came to light that appellant Kulbinder Singh had been reemployed on the basis of forged letter Ext. PW3/E, purporting to have been addressed by Under Secretary (Home) to DGP. A …4… complaint was made to S.P. Shimla, which is Ext. PW23/A. It is dated 26.8.1995. Case was formally registered on the basis of this complaint, vide FIR Ext. PW23/B. 6. During the course of investigation, appellant Kartar Singh made a disclosure statement that he could get recovered the typewriter on which the allegedly forged letter Ext. PW3/E had been typed. His statement was reduced into writing. The same is Ext. PW8/A. He then led the Investigating Officer, namely PW-20 Punita Bhardwaj to District Courts Complex, Shimla and pointed out to the said I.O., a typist, operating from District Courts, namely PW-16 Puran Chand, who had typewriter Ext. P1 with him. The typewriter was taken into possession. Some specimen typewritings was got prepared from Puran Chand on that typewriter in the presence of an Executive Magistrate. Those specimen typewritings was sent to Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, for comparison with the subject matter of letter Ext.PW3/E. He gave opinion that letter Ext. PW3/E and the specimen typewriting were type written from the same typewriter. 7. Specimen signatures of Under Secretary (Home) and Specimen initials of Section Officer, working under the said Under Secretary (Home) were obtained and sent to Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison, …5… with the signature and initial on letter Ext. PW3/E. The said Examiner gave the opinion that there was difference in the writing habits of the authors of specimen signatures and specimen initials and those of the questioned signature and initial on letter Ext. PW3/E. However, the Examiner expressed his inability to give any definite opinion. 8. Sanctions to prosecute the appellants and their accomplice Sukh Dev Raj were obtained and report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed in the Court of Special Judge, alongwith relevant papers. 9. Learned Special Judge, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr. P.C. and hearing the prosecution as also the defence side, felt that a prima-facie case for charging the appellants and their accomplice with the aforesaid offences was made out. They were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty and were, therefore, put on trial. 10. Appellant B.D. Verma denied his involvement in the alleged forgery and pleaded that as a matter of fact, notes recorded by him on the relevant file while processing the matter, prove that he did not have even helping attitude towards appellant Kulbinder Singh. Other appellants denied that they had committed any act of forgery or had played any role in forging letter Ext. PW3/E. …6… 11. Learned trial Court concluded that case of the prosecution stood proved against the present appellants. As regards their co-accused, Sukh Dev Raj, learned trial Court concluded that evidence did not prove his involvement. Consequently, three appellants were convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, while their accomplice Sukh Dev Raj was acquitted. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned Deputy Advocate General and gone through the record. 13. As already noticed hereinabove, Handwriting Expert, has not expressed definite opinion that the alleged forged signature of Under Secretary (Home) and initial of Section Officer were different from the specimen signatures of the Under Secretary (Home) and the specimen initials of the Section Officer. Therefore, on the basis of opinion of Handwriting Expert, which is Ext. Ext.PW24/D, it cannot be said that signature of the Under Secretary (Home) and initial of Section Officer are forged. 14. Prosecution did not examine the person, holding the office of Under Secretary (Home), at the relevant time, with whose specimen signatures the allegedly forged signature on letter Ext. PW3/E had been got compared nor was any explanation put forward for not producing him. It …7… was only he who could have said whether signature on Ext. PW3/E was in his hand or it was forged. Though prosecution did examine the Section Officer, namely D.K. Chophla as PW-1, but he was not shown the allegedly forged letter Ext. PW3/E, leave alone being specifically questioned about his purported initial on that letter. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to come to the conclusion that the purported signature of Under Secretary (Home) and the purported initial of Section Officer, working under, Under Secretary (Home), on Ext. PW3/E, are forged. 15. Aforesaid observation that the signature and initial of Under Secretary and Section Officer, respectively, on letter Ext. PW3/E, are not proved to be forged does not mean that letter is genuine. It stands proved beyond any pale of doubt that the representation, which appellant Kulbinder Singh had made to Secretary (Home), was dealt with in Home Department, vide notes Ext. PW1/B and Ext. PW1/C and the representation had been rejected by the Secretary (Home). It is, however, not made out from the evidence on record if the decision of rejection of representation had been communicated to appellant Kulbinder Singh. PW-1 D.K. Chophla though did say that the decision had been communicated to appellant Kulbinder Singh, vide letter Ext. PW1/D, this letter does not bear any …8… despatch number and if it had been despatched to appellant Kulbinder Singh, as testified by PW-1 D.K. Chophla, then how could it have been part of the file from which he (PW-1 D.K. Chophla) produced it. This letter Ext. PW1/D is not the office copy, but purports to be the original communication, sent to appellant Kulbinder Singh. The fact that it has come from the file maintained in the Home Department suggests that it had not been despatched to appellant Kulbinder Singh. 16. Prosecution story that during the course of investigation appellant Kartar Singh made a disclosure statement leading to discovery of typewriter Ext. P1 from PW-16 Puran Chand, a typist, also does not inspire confidence. PW-16 Puran Chand, while in the witness box, stated that he was kept by the police in detention for one night and had been interrogated for eleven days continuously and it was after such interrogation that his statement, under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded and a day or two thereafter his typewriter was taken into possession. Now, if the typewriter was recovered from PW-16 Puran Chand, after he remained under interrogation for eleven days, it can legitimately be presumed that police was already in the know that typewriter, on which letter Ext. PW3/E had been typed, was of PW-16 Puran Chand. …9… Otherwise there could have been no reason to interrogate him for so long. 17. Above stated position apart, evidence on record does suggest positively that appellant B.D. Verma did not show any sympathy to appellant Kulbinder Singh, leave alone his playing any positive role in his reemployment. Letter Ext. PW3/E was diarized in DGP’s office on 25.11.1994, vide Diary No. 46081, as is clear from entry Ext. PW6/C in Register Ext. PW6/A. Initial note on the file was recorded by PW-3 Surinder Pal, a Junior Assistant and he submitted the file to appellant B.D. Verma, who wrote his note, which has been assigned Nos.104 to 107, in the margin. In this note he clearly stated that reference given in the letter (Ext. PW3/E), though purported to be of a communication from DGP’s office to Secretary (Home), as a matter of fact the communication so referred to, had not been addressed to Secretary (Home) but to appellant Kulbinder Singh. He also pointed out that Government had passed the order (Ext.PW3/E), without seeking comments from the DGP. He then submitted the matter to Administrative Officer, namely PW-14 J.K. Jain, endorsing proposal of Junior Assistant for sending a copy of the letter to Commandant, 1st Battalion, Junga. …10… 18. Administrative Officer marked the file to DIG (Administration), who in turn marked it to Law Section. Law Officer, vide Note No.111 dated 6.12.1994, disagreeing with the office note that Secretary (Home) had accepted the representation of appellant Kulbinder Singh, without seeking comments from the Government, gave the opinion that since the Government had suo motu accepted the representation, DGP had no option but to implement Government’s order. 19. DIG (Administration), to whom file was sent by the Law Officer, disagreed and wrote Note No.112 that reference be made to Government for reconsidering the decision. He submitted the file to IG Headquarters, who, it appears, agreed with his proposal. Accordingly, a draft letter was submitted for approval by appellant B.D. Verma to the senior officers, but the Administrative Officer, i.e. PW-14 J.K. Jain discussed the matter with DGP and wrote note No.118, after such discussion, that office orders for reemployment of appellant Kulbinder Singh be issued. It was thereafter that copy of letter Ext. PW3/E was sent to Commandant, 1st Battalion, Junga. 20. Not only this, thereafter appellant B.D. Verma wrote another note dated 8.2.1995 (Nos. 127 and 128) that clarification may be sought from the Government as to how …11… the period between the date of acceptance of resignation and the reemployment of appellant Kulbinder Singh was to be dealt with. He submitted the matter to Administrative Officer, who agreed to the proposal. Appellant B.D. Verma then submitted a draft to be sent to Secretary (Home). Draft was submitted to DGP through IG Headquarters. DGP sought the opinion of Law Officer, who vide note No.133, opined that the Government had taken the decision to take appellant Kulbinder Singh back into service, keeping in view meritorious services of his father and also his own past service and there was no need for any further clarification. 21. Now, when appellant B.D. Verma himself proposed for seeking clarification from the Government by addressing a communication and also submitted a draft letter addressed to Secretary (Home), it cannot be said that he was party to the act of bringing into being a bogus letter Ext. PW3/E or he even had the knowledge that letter was bogus, because had a reference been made to the Government, as proposed and suggested by him, the truth would have immediately come out that no such letter had been issued by the Secretary (Home). 22. It is true that appellant Kulbinder Singh got benefit of reemployment under this communication and, therefore, it does appear that he was involved in the …12… preparation of this bogus letter in one way or the other, but there is not enough evidence to definitely hold such a view. This is especially so when the allegation of the prosecution that the letter Ext. PW3/E is forged does not stand established, though undoubtedly the letter is fake as its contents are contrary to the decision of the Secretary (Home), on the file, as indicated hereinabove. 23. In view of the above stated position, both the appeals are accepted. Impugned Judgment of the trial Court, convicting and sentencing the three appellants is set aside and the appellants are acquitted. It is clarified that letter Ext. PW3/E being bogus, no benefit can be claimed by appellant Kulbinder Singh on the basis of it. I have been told that he is no longer in service. If it is so, he shall not be taken back because of his acquittal and if he is still in service, he shall be immediately removed, the letter being bogus as it is contrary to the decision of Secretary (Home). Both the appeals stand disposed of. March 8, 2011(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.