IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 73 of 1995 Date of decision: 16.03.2009 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Puran Chand … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. R.M. Bisht & Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondents: Mr. Chander Paul, Advocate. Per V.K. Ahuja , J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Shimla, dated 27.12.1993, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 181, 198 and 420 I.P.C. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent secured admission in the first year of M.B.B.S. Class in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, for the academic Session 1986-87. A complaint was received by the Principal of the College that the respondent has procured a fake Bonafide Himachali Certificate from 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 S.D.M. (Urban), Shimla and on that basis, he had secured admission in the first year of M.B.B.S. The complaint was sent to the police, who made an enquiry and submitted a report that a fake Bonafide Himachali Certificate had been procured by the respondent and a case was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondent, who was tried by the learned trial Court under the above sections, leading to his acquittal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On a perusal of the facts of the case as proved by the prosecution including the defence vide judgment Ext. DX-1, it is clear that an inquiry was conducted by the S.D.M. in pursuance of the complaint received by him and this Court passed an order in a writ petition that the inquiry culminating into the cancellation of the Bonafide Himachali Certificate was held in breach of the rules of the natural justice. Therefore, the State was directed to hold a fresh inquiry into the matter. The said decision was rendered on 1.7.1987, as is clear from Ext. DX-1, a copy of the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 316/1988 dated 2.8.1988, in which a reference has been made to the previous judgment of this Court. A Division Bench of this Court headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice vide their judgment dated 2.8.1988, again quashed the second inquiry report and the respondents were directed to hold a fresh inquiry and to arrive at a fresh decision in accordance with law. There is nothing on record to show that any further inquiry was held by the respondent No. 3 i.e. S.D.M. or any officer of the State Government in view of the judgment passed by this Court, which fact was conceded by the 3 learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellant. Once the previous inquiry had been quashed and direction had been given to hold a fresh inquiry, till a fresh inquiry is held, it could not have been held on the basis of the previous inquiry that the certificate procured by the respondent was a fake certificate. However, in case some independent evidence had been led by the prosecution to prove the charge, it could had been considered as to whether the same is relevant or not in the absence of inquiry report, but even such evidence was not produced on record of the case. Apart from the above, the certificate proved in evidence and relied upon by the prosecution is Ext. PW5/C, which is not even in the name of the respondent, but is in the name of his father, who has neither been arrayed as a co-accused nor has been tried by the learned trial Court. In case, the certificate has been procured by his father and the certificate is in his name, the respondent could not have been tried for procuring false certificate in the absence of his father having been impleaded as a co-accused. There is no evidence on record to show that the father of the respondent, namely, Gurdev Singh, was not a bonafide Himachali. The prosecution had examined nine witnesses to substantiate their case, but there is no such evidence on record to show that any fake certificate was procured by the respondent or that any such inquiry report was submitted by the S.D.M., which could be relied upon. The learned trial Court had referred to the evidence and the observations made by this Court in the writ petition and had rightly concluded that there is no material to prove the charge as against the respondent, 4 which findings cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged forthwith. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. March 16, 2009 ( V.K. Ahuja ), J. (BSS) 5