IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No. 389 of 2001 Date of decision : April 28, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Pradeep Tuli and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences, punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. Respondents Pradeep Tuli and Anil Sood were employed as Company Secretary and Accountant, respectively, in a company, named and styled as Sneh Industries Limited. Mr. A.K. Tuli was the Managing Director of the company. He made a written complaint Ex. PW-5/A, on 23.8.1991, that the two respondents had embezzled a sum of Rs.1,47,592.20p by making false entries and forging vouchers showing that the said amount of money had been disbursed to various persons, including some Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… employees and the complainant himself, in his capacity as the Managing Director. The aforesaid acts of embezzlement and forgery etc. were alleged to have been committed between 24.4.1991 and 3.7.1991. 3. Trial Magistrate framed the charge against the two respondents on 28.10.1996. Various opportunities were given to the prosecution, upto 14.11.2000, to produce its evidence but it could produce only five witnesses, two of whom, namely PW-2 Virender Kumar Khurana and PW-3 Ashok Kumar, were witnesses of production of record of the company to the police, during investigation and two, namely PW-4 Mohinder Pratap and PW-5 Rajinder Pal, were the police officers, who got investigated the case. The fifth witness gave evidence of formal nature. 4. PW-3 Ashok Kumar, in addition to being the witness of the production of the record of the company to the police during investigation, was also one of the persons in whose name bogus payment of Rs.4,000/-, on account of ex-gratia, was alleged to have been shown in the record of the company. Prosecution did not examine the Managing Director of the company, who lodged the complaint, or other witnesses in whose names bogus entries, pertaining to payment of amounts of money, had allegedly been made. PW-3 Ashok Kumar, even though stated in the examination-in-chief that payment of Rs.4,000/- was shown by Anil Sood to him, in the records, and that in fact no payment had been made to him, yet in cross-examination he admitted that a sum of Rs.4,000/- had been received by him as ex-gratia …3… payment. Since the prosecution did not examine the Managing Director and other witnesses in whose names bogus entries had allegedly been made in the record of the company or in whose names vouchers were allegedly forged, the trial Magistrate was justified in ordering the acquittal of the respondents, for want of evidence. No explanation has been offered by the learned Deputy Advocate General, who has argued the case, on behalf of the appellant, as to why the material witnesses were not produced and examined by the prosecution, despite a large number of opportunities having been granted to the State for the purpose over a long period of four years from 28.10.1996 to 24.11.2000. 5. In view of the abovestated position, appeal is dismissed. April 28, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J