IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.51 of 1996 Date of decision: 1.4.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Jagdish Prasad Singhi and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G. For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Sharma vice Mr.Ajay Kochhar counsel for respondent No.1. Mr.Harmit Singh vice Mr.Bimal Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. ____________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 21.6.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, (Forests)/Special Judge, Shimla in C.C. No.20-S/7 of 1993/89, whereby she acquitted the accused of having committed offences offence punishable under Sections 468, 420 read with Section 120-B, 409, 467 and 471 IPC. The admitted facts are that the accused Jagdish Prasad Singhi was working as Technician in the Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Shimla. He applied 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 for grant of leave travel concession to travel along with his family from Shimla to Kanyakumari. He was granted an advance of Rs.1400/- . The accused submitted certain vouchers showing that he along with his family members i.e. 7 persons in all, had traveled from Shimla to Kanyakumari and back vide Bus No.DEP-3166. The total bill submitted was for Rs.3575/-. After adjusting the advance of Rs.1400/- the accused sought payment of the balance amount of Rs.2175/-. However, according to the Department he was only entitled to second class fare from Shimla to Kanyakumari and thus the accused was entitled to Rs.381/- after adjusting the amount of Rs.1400/-. However, even before this amount could be paid the senior officials in the office became suspicious regarding authenticity of the bill submitted by the accused. The bill of Rs.3575/- submitted by the accused was accompanied by a receipt for the same amount from Ambika Tours and Travels (Regd.), B-XIX/248, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana. The matter was referred to the Director (Vigilance) who took into possession all the documents. During investigation it was found that the accused No.2 Guresh Dhir was running a fictitious firm under the name and style of ‘Ambica Tours and Travels’ whereas no such firm existed at the given 3 address. The certificate and receipt were found to be fictitious and during investigation it transpired that bus No.DEP-3166 was in fact owned by one Jagir Singh in Delhi who stated that this bus never went from Shimla to Kanyakumari but plied between Hubali and Manglore. It also transpired that the bus had not crossed the Parwanoo barrier during the period 26.12.81 to 13.1.82, when the accused reportedly performed the journey nor any road tax was found. Thereafter, specimen writing and signatures of accused No.1 were taken and this alongwith questioned signatures and handwriting on the receipt of Rs.1400/- were sent to the Examiner of Questioned Documents. After completion of investigation, the accused were charged with having committed the offence as aforesaid. The main charge against accused No.1 was that he committed criminal breach of trust by withdrawing Rs.1400/- as advance but did not perform the journey from Shimla to Kanyakumari and back and for forgery and cheating qua his claim and the certificate furnished by him to the effect that he performed the journey. The 2nd accused was charged with conspiracy and the fact that he prepared a false receipt and certificate No.117 4 and delivered the same to his co-accused which wrongly showed that accused No.1 along with his family had traveled from Shimla to Kanyakumari and back. Surprisingly though the charge against the accused No.2 was that he had forged the receipt Ext.PW-23/A dated 25.2.1982 and had falsely issued the certificate Ext.PW-23/D, his specimen signatures and handwriting were not taken. Therefore, the signatures and handwriting on the receipt Ext.PW-23/A and certificate Ext.PW-23/D were never marked and sent to the Examiner of Questioned documents. There is no other document to link accused No.2 with the offence. Without proving that he had signed the documents the said accused could not have been held guilty and therefore the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused No.2 since no offence was made out against him. As far as accused No.1 is concerned, to prove this offence it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused had not traveled to Kanyakumari and back and he had dishonestly taken advance of Rs.1400/- and submitted false bill for the balance amount. Accused No.1 did not dispute his handwriting on the application for grant of leave or even on his departure and joining report. 5 He also admitted that he had submitted the TA bill. In fact the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted all the questioned, writings and signatures. The defence of the accused is that he drew the LTC advance for himself and his family members and did avail the same. According to the accused they traveled in bus No.DEP-3166 from Delhi to Kanyakumari and thereafter boarded some other bus the number of which they did not remember. His case is that the certificate Ext.PW-23/A and the receipt Ext.PW-23/D are not the ones which he had submitted with his LTC claim bill. There is no manner of doubt that the bus bearing No.DEP-3166 was in existence. Merely on the oral statement of the owner it cannot be held that this bus did not go to Kanyakumari. Though information was sought to be collected from the State Transport Authority, Delhi for verification of the bus permit of this bus but the said information was not furnished. The owner of the bus could not disclose the name and particulars of his driver who was driving the bus at the relevant time. He even refused to disclose his whereabouts. The owner also did not produce the record of the year 1981-82 by saying that it was not available with him. The log book of the bus was 6 not produced. Even if we assume for the sake of arguments that the firm ‘Ambika Tours and Travels (Regd.) did not exist, this does not means that the accused did not travel in the bus. If a transport operator runs a bus under the false name and plies the same under a false permit the passenger of the bus cannot be said to have committed an office. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused did not travel to Kanyakumari. The possibility of an unscrupulous transport operator running a bus under a false permit or with a false number so as to avoid payment of tax cannot be ruled out. It is a cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the prosecution must establish the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt and if there are suspicious circumstances, however, slightest these are, its benefit must go to the accused. There is no grain of evidence on the record to establish that during the period 26.12.81 to 22.1.82, accused J.P. Singhi and his family members were found present at Shimla or in any other place thus ruling out the possibility of their alleged visit from Shimla to Kanyakumari. PW-Jagir Singh has merely denied mark-X bearing his signatures but he did not at all 7 say that these are not in the handwriting of his driver or these are not bearing his signatures. In order to brand the receipt and certificate to be the pieces of forgery, it was for the prosecution to establish that these are forged. It is not for the accused J.P. Singhi to establish in whose hand these are and whose signatures these are bearing. In view of the above discussion, the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. April 01, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ), J. PV