IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 439 of 2010. Decided on: 5th September, 2011. _________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. -Versus- Meet Singh Sodhi and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) : State has appealed against the judgment dated 29.04.2010, of learned Special Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, whereby, respondents Meet Singh and Sarab Dayal, working as Junior Engineers with the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, at the relevant time, have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Allegations, on which the respondents were put on trial, may be noticed. Respondents were working as Junior Engineers in Sub Division Baragaon, Kumarsain during the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - period from 01.02.1995 to 31.05.1995, when a number of labourers were engaged by them for executing certain works in Malendi Sub Section of Baragaon Sub Division. They paid the wages of those labourers, after making relevant entries in the muster rolls. In August/September, those labourers became entitled to payment of some more amount of money, on account of enhancement of wages, with retrospective effect. A sum of `90,000/- was to be disbursed to the labourers, on account of enhancement of wages, hereinafter referred to as arrears of wages. Respondents are alleged to have mis-appropriated the aforesaid amount of money and to cover up the act of mis- appropriation, they allegedly forged the signatures of labourers on the back side of muster rolls Ex. PW-2/A, Ex. PW-3/A, Ex. PW-24/A-1, Ex. PW-24/A-2 and Ex. PW-24/A-3. 3. A case was registered against the respondents, on the basis of complaint Ex.-PC, made by PW-1 Ghanshayam. During the course of investigation, specimen signatures of the labourers, whose signatures had allegedly been forged, were taken and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents with their purported signatures on the aforesaid muster rolls. Hand-writing expert vide opinion Ex. PW-24/A-34 which is supported by reasons, Ex. PW-24/A-35, opined that the purported signatures marked Q-7 and Q-7A of PW-2 Man Dass on Ex. PW-2/A and purported signatures of PW-3 Molak Ram marked Q-26 and Q-26/A on muster roll Ex. PW-3/A, did not match with their specimen signatures. Specimen signatures of PW-2 Man Dass are marked S210 to S212 on Ex. PW-2/D, Ex. - 3 - PW-2/E and Ex. PW-2/F and specimen signatures of PW-3 Molak Ram are marked S256 to S259 on Ex. PW-3/D, Ex. PW- 3/E and Ex. PW-3/F. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid opinion from the hand- writing expert, investigating agency applied to the disciplinary authority of the respondents for according sanction to prosecute them, under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and on receipt of such sanction, report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code alongwith relevant papers was filed in the Court of learned Special Judge. Respondents were charged with the aforesaid offences by the learned Special Judge. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and were, therefore, put on trial. 5. Prosecution, besides proving the opinion of hand- writing expert, namely Dr. B.A. Vaid (PW-24), examined ten of the labourers, whose arrears of wages had allegedly been mis- appropriated by forging their signatures on the muster rolls. All the ten labourers, namely Ghanshayam, Man Dass, Molak Ram, Mohan Singh, Panna Lal, Khub Ram, Mohinder Kumar, Devinder Kumar, Sees Ram and Devinder Singh, testified that they had received the wages and put their signatures on the muster rolls. These ten labourers included PW-1 Ghanshayam, who lodged the complaint, Ex.-PC. Hand writing expert’s opinion Ex. PW-24/A-34 pertains to only two witnesses, namely Man Dass (PW-2) and Molak Ram (PW-3). With respect to the remaining eight witnesses, hand-writing expert opined that material made available to him, for comparison, was not sufficient to arrive at a definite opinion. - 4 - 6. Since all the ten labourers, examined by the prosecution to prove the charge that their arrears of wages had been mis-appropriated, testified that they had received the arrears of wages in full, no fault can be found with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge. 7. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that in view of opinion of the hand-writing expert in respect of PW-2 Man Dass and PW-3 Molak Ram, findings of the learned trial Court cannot be up-held. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Opinion evidence alone cannot be sufficient to convict a person of the charge of forgery, especially when the person, whose signature/writing is alleged to have been forged, appears in the witness box and testifies that the allegedly forged signature/writing is his own. The reason is that opinion evidence, particularly with respect to hand-writing comparison, is a weak type of evidence. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge September 05, 2011. (bhupender) - 5 -