IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2007. Date of decision: March 23, 2011. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. G.S.Verma & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellant : Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate for respondent No.2. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) . This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 30.4.2007 of the learned Special Judge, Chamba, whereby respondents G.S.Verma and Daljeet Sharma, have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 409, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Prosecution case is like this. Respondent G.S.Verma, was working as District Family Welfare Officer, Chamba, during the years 1993 to 1995. Respondent No.2 Daljeet Sharma was working Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… as Junior Assistant in his office. One of the functions of District Family Welfare Office was to disburse incentive money to those who underwent tubectomy and vescotomy operations and to make payments to the persons undergoing such operations, money used to be withdrawn from the office of Chief Medical Officer, Chamba. The practice was that a request would be made to Chief Medical Officer, Chamba for withdrawal of money from the treasury and the Chief Medical Officer would then consider that request and pass sanction order. On the basis of that sanction order, bill were prepared and submitted to the treasury. PW 8 Ashwani Kumar, working as Casher in the office of Chief Medical Officer, used to do the job of preparation of bills and withdrawal of money, from the treasury. He would then disburse the money to Daljeet Sharma, Junior Assistant, because the latter used to produce authority letters executed in his favour, by respondent G.S.Verma. 3. A sum of Rs.1,08,000/- was withdrawn by Chief Medical Officer from the treasury, vide bills Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-18, on the request of office of District Family Welfare Officer. Respondent G.S.Verma, who was officiating as District Family Welfare Officer, at the relevant time, authorized respondent Daljeet Sharma to receive the payments of those bills, vide authority letters Ex. P-45, Ex. P-46 and Ex. P-47, pasted at page- 88, 92 and 107 of register of disbursement, maintained in the office of Chief Medical Officer. The register is Ex. P-23. The authority letters used to be written by Daljeet Sharma respondent and submitted to respondent G.S.Verma for signatures. On all the three letters, G.S.Verma respondent, before putting his …3… signatures, wrote in green-ink (in which ink he signed those letters) that respondent Daljeet Sharma himself shall be responsible for disbursement and recoupment of amount authorized to be withdrawn by him. 4. Respondent Daljeet Sharma on the strength of the aforesaid authority letters, withdrew the money by putting his signatures in the disbursement register Ex. P-23, which signatures are marked Q-1 to Q-17. 5. In the year 1996, it came to light that respondent Daljeet Sharma had disbursed only a sum of Rs.9000/- out of the withdrawn amount of Rs.1,08,000/- and the rest of the amount had remained unaccounted. He was called upon, in writing, both by respondent G.S.Verma and Chief Medical Officer to account for the rest of the money and to deposit the same. He deposited the amount of Rs.99,000/- against receipts Ex. P-50 to Ex. P- 53 with PW 8 Ashwani Kuamar, Cashier in the office of Chief Medical Officer, who in turn deposited the same in the treasury. 6. A complaint was received by the police purporting to be signed by one K.P.Sharma, in which it was alleged that the two respondents had misappropriated money meant for disbursement to the persons undergoing tubectomy and vescotomy operations. Police inquired into the matter and after inquiry, registered a case, vide FIR Ex. PW 9/A. During the course of investigation, admitted and specimen signatures of respondent Daljeet Sharma were sent for comparison with his purported signatures in the disbursement register maintained in the office of Chief Medical Officer, against the entries …4… pertaining to the payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,08,000/- to him. Hand-writings Expert, vide opinion Ex. PW 13/A, opined that signatures in the disbursement register Ex. P-23 tallied with the standard signatures of respondent Daljeet Sharma. 7. Specimen writings and signatures of respondent G.S.Verma, were also sent to the Handwritings Expert for comparison with his signatures on authority letters Ex. P-45, Ex. P-46 and Ex. P-47. The expert opined that signatures on the authority letters matched with the standard signatures of G.S.Verma. 8. On completion of investigation, challan was filed in the court of learned Special Judge, who after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, charged the respondents with offences, under Sections 409, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Respondents pleaded not guilty. 9. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses and also proved several documents and entries in the registers. Respondents denied that they had received the money or misappropriated it. G.S.Verma, respondent took the plea that he had authorized the receipt of money by respondent Daljeet Sharma against authority letters Ex. P-45, Ex. P-46 and Ex. P-47, in which it was clearly written by him in his own hand that respondent Daljeet Sharma himself will be responsible for disbursement of money and recoupment of advance. 10. Respondent Daljeet Sharma took the plea that after collecting the money from Chief Medical Office on the strength of …5… aforesaid three authority letters, he handed over the same to respondent G.S.verma, and, therefore, the latter was accountable. He denied that a sum of Rs.99,000/- had been deposited with PW 8 Ashwani Kumar by him. Instead he pleaded that money was deposited by G.S.Verma. 11. Learned Special Judge despite admission by respondent Daljeet Sharma that he had received the money from PW 8 Ashwani Kumar, Cashier in the office of Chief Medical Officer, on the strength of authority letters Ex. P-45, Ex. P-46, Ex. P-47 and also the evidence of PW 13 Visheshwar Sharma, Handwritings Expert that signatures against the relevant entries, i.e. entries No. 201, 202 at page-88, entries No. 454 to 462, 464, 467, 468, 470 at page 107 in the register Ex. P-23 matched with standard signatures of respondent Daljeet Sharma returned the finding that there was no evidence of entrustment. The finding is not only perverse but also betrays lack of judicial acumen. How could the learned Special Judge have returned a finding that there was no evidence of entrustment, when authority letters are there and G.S. Verma, who gave the authority letters, admitted that against these letters he had authorized Daljeet Sharma to receive the payment and Daljeet Sharma also admitted having received the payments on the strength of the aforesaid authority letters and further admitted having put his signatures against the above referred to entries in register Ex. P-23 in token of receipt of money mentioned in those entries. 12. Once entrustment is proved, it is for the person receiving the money or the property to explain how did he deal with the money …6… or the property. In the present case, the money was actually received by Daljeet Sharma, though on behalf of respondent G.S. Verma. G.S.Verma, while authorizing respondent Daljeet Sharma to receive the money very specifically wrote in the authority letter in his own hand by making addition to the draft submitted to him by respondent Daljeet Sharma that latter would himself be responsible for disbursing the money and its recoupment. The writing clearly suggests that money was not to be handed over to G.S.Verma after its collection from the office of Chief Medical Officer. 13. Daljeet Sharma did not produce any document indicating that he had handed over the money to G.S.Verma, who was officiating as District Family Welfare Officer. Now, when the money had been authorized to be withdrawn by him with a categorical mention in the authority letter that he himself will be responsible for its disbursement and recoupment, it is not believable that he handed over the money to him or would have done so, without obtaining G.S.Verma’s signatures either at the foot of authority letter or in some register. 14. In view of what we have stated hereinabove, the question as to who deposited the sum of Rs.99,000/- out of the embezzled amount becomes insignificant. In any case, there is enough evidence to show that it was respondent Daljeet Sharma, who deposited the money. Reference may be made to the testimony of PW 8 Ashwani Kumar in this behalf. The witness very categorically stated that the amount of Rs.99,000/- was returned to him by respondent Daljeet …7… Sharma on different occasions and he furnished receipts Ex. P-50 to Ex. P-53 in favour of District Family Welfare Officer. 15. Learned counsel representing respondent Daljeet Sharma submits that receipts Ex. P-50 to Ex. P-53 have been issued in favour of District Family Welfare Officer and it was G.S.Verma, respondent who was holding the said post at the relevant time and hence, the finding should be that it was he who returned the amount of Rs.99,000/- to Chief Medical Officer. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. When the evidence on record clearly suggests, as noticed hereinabove, that money was received by Daljeet Sharma and he did not hand it over to G.S. Verma, presumption is that it was Daljeet Sharma, who had the money with him and therefore, it was he who returned it to PW 13 Ashwani Kumar. Receipts are issued in the name of D.F.W.O. because initially the money was withdrawn from the treasury for disbursement to him. 16. In view of above stated position, we partly accept and partly allow the present appeal. The appeal, as against respondent G.S.Verma is dismissed and against second respondent Daljeet Sharma it is accepted and the said respondent is convicted of offence, under Section 409 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He be produced in the court on 20.4.2011, for being heard on the quantum of sentence. ( Surjit Singh ), Judge. March 23, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.