HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No. 344 of 2001. Decided on: 8.7.2008. State of H.P. ………Appellant. Versus Niraj Kumar and another ……Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Parmod Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This judgment shall dispose of the appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned CJM, Shimla, dated 5.2.2001, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the notice of accusation put to them under Sections 353 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 31.10.1996, a complaint was made by PW-1 O.P. Gulliyani, Store Inspection Officer from the Industries Department, alleging that when he was sitting in his office, both the respondents came to his office, threatened him and used un-parliamentary language and ________________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - caused obstruction in performance of his duties and captured a sample allegedly taken by him some time prior to the occurrence. It was further alleged that when they were going out, they again used un-parliamentary language, manhandled him and threatened him in presence of several employees of the Industries Department. On this report, a case was registered by the police, leading to the filing of the challan against the respondents, who were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant shows that he has made reference to two parts of the occurrence that threats were given to him and he was also given abuses. First part of the occurrence took place in his office room where the respondents came, allegedly threatened him, abused him using un-parliamentary language and caused obstruction in performance of his duties. The witnesses to this occurrence, according to the complainant, were one A.L. Sharma, Section Officer and Rakesh Gupta, Superintendent, who was examined as PW-5. I will firstly take the evidence in regard to first part of this occurrence. Coming to the statement of the witnesses, who were the witnesses to the first occurrence, the complainant has been examined as PW-1, who stated about the occurrence that the respondents came there, asked him as to why he has taken samples and gave him a threat and snatched the sample, obstructed him in performance of his duties and ran away towards the lobby. He did not state about any threat having been given to him or the abuses or use of un- parliamentary language about which the complaint was filed by him. - 3 - The other witness to this occurrence, as alleged in the complaint, was PW-5 Rakesh Gupta, who has simply stated that he saw the exchange of words going on in between the complainant and the accused persons and thereafter, the complainant left his room. He stated that he was present in the room of the complainant at that time. He did not state about any threat or abuses or use of un-parliamentary language by the respondents. The third witness, who was cited having witnessed this occurrence, was A.L. Sharma, Section Officer, who was given up by the prosecution. The accused persons have not been charged under Section 504 IPC for hurling abuses but they have been charged under Section 506 IPC and for obstruction in the performance of duties under Section 353 IPC, but these were not substantiated either from the statement of the complainant himself or the only witness, namely, PW-5 Rakesh Gupta, examined to prove the first occurrence. Coming to the second part of the allegations made in the complaint, it was alleged that while going out, the accused persons again gave abuses and threat to the complainant and the complainant has alleged that this incident was witnessed by 9 persons, who are the employees of the Directorate of Industries, as mentioned in the report Ext.PW-1/A. Out of these 9 persons cited having witnessed the second part of the occurrence when the accused persons shouted at the complainant, used un-parliamentary language, manhandled and threatened him, some of the witnesses have been examined, namely, PW-2 Kamlesh Sharma, PW-6 Bhimi Ram, PW-8 Raj Kumar and PW-9 Amar Dev. All these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. One of the witnesses produced i.e. PW-3 Bharat Bhushan has only stated about the - 4 - abuses for which the respondents have not been charged. The remaining witnesses who had allegedly seen the second part of occurrence were not examined by the prosecution. The above discussion clearly shows that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt and the findings of the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharge. July 8, 2008 (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.