1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 201 of 2000 Decided on November 11, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Dev Dutt ...Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. ¹Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma,Senior Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Amicus Curiae Justice R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) Mr. Ashok Tyagi, has been requested to assist this Court as amicus curiae on behalf of the respondent-accused and he has agreed to assist this Court. 2. The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to judgment dated 24.6.1999, passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, H.P., in Case No.106/20 of 1996/94 under Sections 457, 380 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged respondent- accused. 3. The prosecution case is that on 17.5.1993 around 6.00 A.M. one Home Guard Sagar Chand came to the house of Treasury Officer Ram Saran and told him that locks of the 2 Treasury were lying open. Thereafter, complainant Ram Saran visited the Treasury alongwith Clerk Prem Singh and saw that the locks were actually open. The matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which FIR was lodged. 4. After investigation, respondent-accused was charged for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses, whereas, the accused through his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has denied the prosecution case and shown his innocence. 5. On behalf of the prosecution PW.1 Om Prakash, PW.2 Chatar Singh, PW.3 Durga Dass, PW.4 Ram Saran, PW.5 Vir Vikram, PW.6 Madan Singh, PW.7 H.C. Surat Singh, PW.8 Karam Chand, PW.9 Upender Singh and PW.10 J.R. Gaur, were examined. 6. On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we find that accused-respondent Dev Dutt was not on duty when the alleged theft was made. Duty register has also not been produced and recovery of money has not been made at the instance of alleged accused Dev Dutt. Prosecution, could not prove that the finger prints available on the spot were not sent for its comparison and to co-relate with the actual person involved in theft. During the endeavour of the prosecution, they anyway failed to co-relate the accused Dev Dutt with the alleged theft of public money. The evidence produced by the prosecution relates to the alleged disclosure statement of accused Gurdeep @ Kuldeep and the consequent 3 recovery of money from the bushes as well as from his house. No recovery was effected from accused Dev Dutt or at his instance, whereas, other accused Kuldeep had died during the pendency of the trial. 7. In the facts and circumstances no conclusive proof and materials have been brought to co-relate accused- respondent Dev Dutt with the alleged theft. 8. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, learned trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view also, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused and there is no scope of interference in the findings given by learned trial court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 9. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondent are hereby discharged. 10. We place on record our words of appreciation to Mr.Ashok Tyagi, for his assistance to the Court as an amicus curiae. (R.B. Misra) Judge November 11, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (Purohit) Judge