HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 85 of 2000 Decided on: 12.8.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Yudhbir Singh ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.R.S. Kanwar, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Hamirpur, dated 27.9.1997, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 199 and 468 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was pending as against one Balbir Singh. One Ram Singh had, allegedly, stood surety for the said accused Balbir Singh in that case and filed surety bound for the due appearance of the accused Balbir Singh. The said Balbir Singh did not put in appearance in the court and a notice was issued to the surety Ram Singh under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. as to why the surety bond furnished by him be not forfeited. He ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - produced his evidence that the said Balbir Singh was not known to him and he neither stood as surety for the said Balbir Singh nor filed any surety bond or an affidavit. Accordingly, he took up the plea that his signatures were not there on the surety bond. It transpired during the course of hearing as against Ram Singh that the mischief had been done by his son Yudhbir Singh, who had appeared before the court, filed his surety bond and he had been identified by the then Advocate Shri A.C. Dogra at the instance of his Clerk Pritam Singh and the surety bond and affidavit were filed by the said Yudhbir Singh, son of Ram Singh. 3. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by Shri Manoj Kumar Bansal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Hamirpur on 2.1.1992 as against the present respondent, who was tried by the learned trial Court and on conclusion of the trial, he was acquitted of the charge framed against him, as detailed above. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The main question for determination was as to whether the surety bond and the affidavit furnished by the respondent bore his signatures or he had signed in the name of his father Ram Singh and had also sworn an affidavit in this regard. The Advocate, who identified the respondent at the instance of his Clerk Shri Pritam Singh, has appeared in the witness box as PW-2. He stated that he was not knowing the surety personally but he was got identified from his Clerk Pritam Singh, who personally knew him. The said Pritam Singh was never examined to show as to whether he had - 3 - identified the respondent or the surety was furnished in the name of respondent’s father. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that the said Clerk had identified a wrong person in the Court. 6. Apart from the above, another question which arises for consideration is as to whether the surety bond and the affidavit, the copies of which have been proved on record as Ext.PW-2/A and Ext.PW-2/C, bore the signatures of the respondent. The original of both these documents had been destroyed and only the photocopies of the same have been produced during the trial of the case. There is nothing on the record to show that these were attested copies. Therefore, in the absence of the original having been produced on record and the signatures proved on those documents, it cannot be concluded that these bear the signatures of the respondent or his father. The said original documents were also not sent to the hand writing expert for comparison alongwith the signatures on the surety bond and the affidavit. In the absence of such evidence have been led before the learned trial Court, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. August 12, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge