IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 265 of 1996 Reserved on: 31.03.2010 Date of decision: 20.04.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Bhagwan Dass … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General, For the respondent: Mr. Y. Paul, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. : This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, dated 25.11.1994, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a secret information was received by Head Constable of Anti Corruption Wing Hamirpur that the respondent had given a forged school leaving certificate to one Ravinder Singh and a fake matriculation certificate to one Ravi Chand during the time he was posted as a teacher in Government Primary School Baroti from 1980 to 1982. On the basis 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of this information so received by him, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent as detailed above, leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The first charge as against the respondent was that he had issued a fake matriculation certificate to one Ravi Chand that he had passed matriculation examination in 1974 under the Board of School Education, Dharamshala, by charging an amount of Rs.300/- from him. To substantiate this charge, the prosecution had examined the said Ravi Chand as PW-12, who stated that he had not passed matric in 1974 and had appeared in 1976, but this fake certificate Ext. PW5/B was issued to him by the accused by charging Rs.300/-. The other evidence led to prove this charge is the statement of PW-14 Pomila Sharma from Education Board, who stated that this certificate Ext.PW5/B given at Sr. No. was not issued by their office since she identified the signatures of the Secretary Education Board. She further stated that this Roll No. was not there in the list of private candidates. She was not aware till which period Shri Malik, Secretary Education, was posted. She stated that she cannot identify the signatures of all the persons posted in the Board. Learned trial Court did not believe the statement of PW-12 Ravi Chand in view of the contradictory statement given by the witness in Court and statement Ext. PW13/B, which was recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. There is nothing on the record to suggest that any such evidence was led to prove that this matriculation certificate bears the signatures of the respondent or that the said certificate and the specimen signatures of 3 the accused were sent to an expert, who gave his opinion as against the respondent. Therefore, insofar as the charge for issuing matriculation certificate is concerned, nothing has been brought to my notice during the course of arguments that some evidence has not been considered by the learned trial Court and I do not find any reason to hold that those findings are not correct. Coming to the second charge that the respondent who was posted as a teacher issued a school leaving certificate in favour of one Ravinder Singh that he was studying in 2nd class in the year 1982. The learned trial Court had made a reference to the statement of one PW-3 Het Ram in this regard, who was posted as Head Teacher at the relevant time. His opinion was being sought for comparing the signatures on the certificate and in the school register to prove that these are of the respondent, which evidence cannot be said to be reliable to hold that this forged certificate Ext.P-3 was issued by the accused. The only evidence in this regard could have been the report of the handwriting expert who has been examined in Court as PW-18 S.K. Saxena. The prosecution had proved the specimen handwriting of the accused and his signatures Ext. PW7/A to Ext. PW7/R, which were allegedly sent to the handwriting expert, but the report of the handwriting expert suggests that there was no reference to these exhibits in his report. The photographs were proved by him but since it was never opined by him that he received these specimen handwriting and signatures and after comparison gave his report and, therefore, his evidence was not rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court. I do not find any reason to hold that the said 4 conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court was perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly 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. ( V.K. Ahuja ), April 20, 2010 Judge (BSS) 5