IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.30 of 1995 Judgment reserved on: 13.7.2009. Date of decision: 22.7.2009 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Jagdish Chand … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: None. ____________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.1993 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Case No.129/2 of 1988, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Swami Ram filed a complaint in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh. In this complaint it was alleged that the complainant worked with one contractor, namely, Geeta Ram from April, 1986 to June, 1986. One Shiv Ram also worked with the same contractor. They used to bring water, stones and logs of wood etc. on their mules for the contractor. According to the complainant, Geeta Ram owed Rs. 6585/- to him out of which he paid half of the amount and the balance amount was still to be paid. Thereafter, the complainant went to the contractor for the balance payment. The contractor informed him that payment on behalf of the complainant had been received by Jagdish Chand accused. Thereafter, the complainant went to the house of the accused but the accused person did not make any payment to the complainant and denied that he had received any payment from Geeta Ram, Contractor. It was also alleged that the accused person has forged some false receipts of payment. The complainant Swami Ram appeared as PW-1. In his statement he stated that he worked along with PW Kamal Dev for bringing water on the mules at agreed 3 rate. Shiv Ram and Ram Chand also worked there. According to the complainant, the accused owed him Rs.6585/- but the accused paid him only Rs.4134/- and promised to pay balance amount of Rs.2451/-. According to the complainant the accused informed him that the Contractor Kamal Dev had not received the full payment of the work from the Government and would make the payment after Kamal Dev receives the amount from the Government. Then the complainant went to Kamal Dev who informed him that he had paid the entire amount to accused Jagdish Chand. Kamal Dev also produced receipt Ext.PW-1/A allegedly given to him by Jagdish. In the complaint Ext.PW-1/B the complainant had not stated that he worked with Kamal Dev. In the complaint he had stated that he was working with Geeta Ram, Contractor. However, in the statement in Court he changed the version and stated that he was working with Kamal Dev, contractor and never worked with Geeta Ram. He also admitted that receipt for Rs.4134/- was prepared when payment of this amount was made to him. He admits that he had showed this receipt to the police but according to him this receipt was also forged. 4 According to Kamal Dev PW-2 when he was working as Contractor with the Government for construction of the Swaharghat road he had given contract to accused Jagdish, Complainant Swami Ram, Shiv Ram and Ram Chand. Jagdish was the main Contractor and other three were sub-contractors. Kamal Dev paid two amounts of Rs.55,163/- and Rs.31,000/- to Jagdish who issued receipt in token of having received this amount. Jagdish then handed over to him three receipts in respect of the mount paid by him to Swami Ram, Shiv Ram and Ram Chand. When Swami Ram demanded some amount from him he showed him the receipt Ext.PW-1/A. In cross examination he admits that in fact the work of bringing water was given to the accused by him and Geeta Ram together. Geeta Ram was produced as PW-10. He states that when the work of bringing water was assigned to the complainant and others these persons told him that the payment be made to Jagdish Chand. This is a totally new version which is not reflected in the statement of any other witness. The case of the prosecution is that the accused dishonestly and fraudulently prepared receipt Ext.PW-1/A. 5 The Investigating Officer Sh.Krishan Singh was examined as PW-6. He admitted that there are number of receipts in the police file which were issued by Swami Ram and Shiv Ram to the accused about payments made in the Khangi Panchayat. These receipts have been withheld from the Court. The prosecution was bound to produce the receipts. Since it has withheld the receipts, adverse inference has to be raised against the prosecution. After going through the entire evidence it is apparent that the Contractor Kamal Dev had assigned the work for bringing water to accused Jagdish at a higher rate. The accused in turn assigned the work to complainant and others at a lower rate. He made payment to the said persons at the rates agreed to between them. However, when the complainant came to know that the accused had taken a greater amount from the contractor they filed the complaint. In the present case, there is not an iota of evidence on record to prove that the receipt Ext.PW-1/A was prepared fraudulently or that it was a forged receipt. As such the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and the judgment of the learned trial court calls for no interference in appeal. 6 In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. July 22, 2009 ( Surinder Singh ), J. PV