IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No. 456 of 2000 Date of decision : May 8, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Naseem Ahmed and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Magistrate, whereby the respondents, who were tried for offences, punishable under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 120-B IPC, have been acquitted. 2. Report that was filed against the two respondents by the police contained the following allegations. On the night intervening 24th & 25th December, 1994, respondent Naseem Ahmed alongwith two other persons was arrested, under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the search of his person, among other things, Ex. P-1, an identity card in the name of respondent Rakesh Kumar, an employee of Himachal Road Transport Corporation, was recovered. However, the photograph on the identity card was of respondent Naseem Ahmed. So, a case was registered for forging the identity card and also for using the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… forged identity card as genuine and also for cheating by impersonation. Investigation into the matter revealed that respondent Rakesh Kumar had helped respondent Naseem Ahmed to forge the identity card by affixing seals and stamps of Himachal Road Transport Corporation thereon. 3. Prosecution examined PW-9 SI Dharam Singh, who arrested respondent Naseem Ahmed and allegedly recovered the identity card Ex. P-1 in the course of his personal search. The identity card was allegedly taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA/1. Attesting witnesses of this memo, namely HC Suresha Nand and Constable Prem Singh, were not examined. Only SI Dharam Singh appeared as PW-9 and stated that he had recovered the identity card from the respondent during the search of his person, on his arrest, under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Trial Court has not believed the version of the prosecution, on account of its failure to examine either of the two attesting witnesses of memo Ex. PA/1. 4. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. 5. A bare look at Ex. PA/1, the seizure memo, shows that item No.3 of the seizure memo pertains to the identity card. Initially, what is written in item No.3 is that an identity card No.2989, dated 17.6.1993, in the name of Rakesh Kumar son of Shiv Ram Sharma, Clerk, Department of Welfare. Words “on which photo of Naseem Ahmed is affixed” have been added to this item in a different pen and ink. The very fact that the words that in the card the photograph of respondent Naseem Ahmed is affixed have been added …3… subsequently in a different ink and pen, shows that initially the photograph of respondent Naseem Ahmed was not there in the identity card. 6. PW-9 SI Dharam Singh stated that he had required respondent Naseem Ahmed to produce his photographs and that he produced the same on 7.1.1995, which he took into possession vide memo Ex. PG. The photographs were attested by PW-6 Manish Kishore, Advocate. The witness testified that in fact there were three photographs and not two and that all the three photographs were similar. He also stated that no identity card was there, at the time when he was shown the three photographs. 7. The defence plea is that no identity card was recovered from respondent Naseem Ahmed nor was there any photograph of the said respondent affixed on that identity card and that lateron the said respondent was forced to get himself photographed and three copies of the photograph were got prepared and one of such copy might have been affixed on the identity card Ex. P-1. The testimony of PW-6 Manish Kishore probabilizes the defence plea. Also, the fact that the memo of personal search of the respondent, Ex. PA/1, has been tampered with, as noticed hereinabove, renders the prosecution story highly doubtful. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. May 8, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J