IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. A. No. 343 of 1993. Date of Decision: 11.11.2008 ________________________________________________________________ State of H.P. … Appellant Versus Mohan Lal & others … Respondents. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr.Advocate With Mr. APS Jaswal, Advocate for Respondents 1,5,7 to 12 and 14. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for Respondents 2 & 3. Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate vice Mr. Som Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate for respondent No.4. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Kandaghat, District Solan dated 29.10.1992, whereby he has acquitted the accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 406/120B, - 2 - 420/120-B, 468/120-B and 467/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in brief is that the State set up the District Rural Development Agency ( for short:DRDA) in the various districts of Himachal Pradesh. A scheme was introduced by the DRDA to provide loan and subsidy to the poorest of the poor for purchase of mules. A committee was constituted to process this work. Two of the accused were the members of this committee. One of the members was a Veterinary doctor who was appointed to verify the health of the mules to be purchased. According to the prosecution, money was not to be given to the beneficiaries directly. Both the loan and the subsidy amounts were to be advanced to them in kind i.e. by purchase of mules and no cash transaction was to be done with them. The prosecution case is that 10 persons from Solan District applied for grant of loan and subsidy for purchase of mules. The Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned who was also an accused was associated with the purchase committee. It is alleged that the members of the committee along with the Manager of the Bank and the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat who are both accused in the case - 3 - accompanied all the beneficiaries and went to Patiala ostensibly to purchase mules. It is alleged that a representative of the United India Insurance Company Shri Ashok Girdhar (PW10) also went with the committee members to Patiala and it was his job to insert tags in the ears of the mules at the time of the purchase. The prosecution alleges that no mules were purchased and no loan amount was handed over to the beneficiaries and the same has been distributed amongst the accused. A complaint was received from one of the residents of the village that no mules had been purchased. PW8 directed an inquiry to be conducted and in the inquiry it was allegedly found that the mules had not been purchased and the money has been embezzled and that the documents envisaging the purchase of the mules were forged documents. Thereafter the investigation was done by the police and on the basis of the investigation challan was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case but the learned trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. The first thing which the prosecution had to prove was that the signatures and thumb impressions of the - 4 - sellers on the receipts Exts. P2 to P15 and PA to PF are forged. To prove this, the prosecution examined two sellers, namely, Som Nath and Buta Singh. Rajpal the third seller was not examined. In court, Som Nath and Buta Singh stated that they had sold the mules to the committee and had received consideration thereof and had executed the receipts. Surprisingly, though both the witnesses turned hostile only Som Nath was declared hostile and the statement of Buta Singh was accepted by the prosecution. The investigation was also very tardy since neither the specimen signatures nor the thumb impressions of the alleged sellers were taken by the police for getting them compared with the ones appearing on the receipts Exts. P2 to P15 and PA to PF. It is thus clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that the receipts issued by the sellers were forged. One of the allegations of the prosecution was that one of the benenficiaries Shri Thebar Ram never went to Patiala and his son accused Narain Dass went to Patiala and had forged the documents by misrepresenting himself to be Thebar Ram. The police during the investigation obtained the specimen signatures and thumb impressions of Thebar Ram and Narain Dass. These - 5 - were also got compared by the police from the Director, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur and report Ex.PW9/A was obtained. This report was not proved by any of the signatories to the report. It has been proved by one Shri Ram Avatar Sharma (PW9) who has nothing to do with the comparison of signatures. He has only identified the signatures of the persons who made the report. Admittedly, those persons are still in service and no explanation has been given as to why they have not been examined. The evidence of an expert witness becomes admissible only if he appears in court and testifies in support of its report. He can then be cross-examined to challenge the veracity of his report. In the absence of the examination of the authors of the report, no reliance can be placed on the same. PW10 Ashok Girdhar had been deputed by the Insurance Company to insure the mules. He also did not support the prosecution case. According to him, the mules were purchased and thereafter medical check up was done by Dr. Kachroo and Dr. Sehdev and then he inserted the tags on the ears of the mules. Though he was declared hostile nothing material has been extracted. The - 6 - other witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case. From the perusal of the entire record of the case, it is apparent that not even a single witness has stated that the mules were not actually purchased or that the money was misappropriated. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove any portion of its allegations. As such there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. (Deepak Gupta ), J. November 11, 2008. ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. s.