IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 70 of 1999 Date of decision: 24.05.2010 ____________________________________________________________ The State of H.P. .....Appellant. Versus Ram Singh .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta,J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ____________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 01.12.1998, delivered by the learned Special Judge, Una, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The undisputed facts are that the accused Ram Singh was working as Junior Basic Training Teacher (JBT) at Government Primary School (GPS) Kataur Kalan, during the year 1984. He applied for grant of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) whereby he alongwith his family members, i.e. his wife, three sons and two 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. :-2-: daughter were to travel to Kanya Kumari and back during the period 17.09.1984 to 04.10.1984. He withdrew an advance amount of Rs. 7500/-. 3. On his purported return after availing the Leave Travel Concession, the accused Ram Singh submitted a final LTC bill of Rs. 9498.30/-. He thereafter received a sum of Rs. 1998.30/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 7500/- paid to him in advance. 4. The prosecution story is that during the year 1986, the police at Hamirpur received information that large number of teachers working in Education Department had submitted forged and fictitious LTC bills. Thereafter inquiry was conducted in number of cases including the present case and thereafter the case was registered. 5. The prosecution case is that the accused and his family did not actually perform the journey from Una to Kanya Kumari and back. He submitted forged LTC bills. These bills were based on forged receipts and forged bus tickets. Accused and his family members allegedly got their bookings done through M/s. Chetna Travels. During investigation it was found that no such agency actually existed. It is further the case of the prosecution that the vouchers in the name of M/s. Chetna Travels had been filled in by one Salig Ram. According to the prosecution, the bus No. RRG 371, in which the accused allegedly traveled, did not belong to M/s. Chetna Travels and never went to Kanya Kumari. Specimen hand writing of the accused were taken and the specimen hand writing alongwith disputed documents was sent to :-3-: the examiner of questioned documents and their opinions were received. 6. Ram Singh accused has not denied this fact that he submitted the bills and he received the amount. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the evidence in regard to this issue. The question is whether he and his family actually traveled to Kanya Kumari and whether the bills submitted were forged or not. The accused during the trial, admitted the contents of the report of the Hand Writing Expert without formal proof thereof. In the said report, the Hand Writing Expert has clearly stated that he could not opine as to in whose hand writing the disputed receipts have been filled in. The examiner of the questioned documents has not opined that the receipts are filled in by the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that it was the accused who filled in the receipts. 7. The bus in question, No. RRG 371 was owned by PW Ram Avtar Agarwal. According to him, this bus never went to Kanya Kumari, but he admitted in his cross-examination that he used to hire-out his bus to many travel agents. He did not produce the record of the relevant year to show as to whom he hired-out the bus. According to him, he did not maintain any such record. Admittedly, Ram Avtar Agarwal used to hire-out his buses and the possibility of his bus being hired-out to M/s Chetna Travels cannot be ruled out. It would be pertinent to mention that when a person travels through aegis of a travel agent, it is not necessary that the vehicle in which he travels belongs to the travel agent. The Travel :-4-: agent is only required to make arrangements for the travel of the person. It is not necessary that the bus must belong to the travel agent. The prosecution has failed to prove that no travel agency by the name of M/s Chetna Travels exists. A person engaging the services of travel agent is not required to verify the fact whether the vehicle is owned by the travel agent or whether the registration certificate of the vehicle is valid or not. The prosecution should have proved by placing evidence on record that the accused and his family members were in Una and had not traveled to Kanya Kumari. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the accused and his family members were at some other place and had not traveled to Kanya Kumari. A person who has given a receipt by a travel agent has no reason to doubt the veracity of the said receipt. 8. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that bus No. RRG 371 never traveled to Kanya Kumari or back. Therefore, the learned trial court was 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) Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge 24th May, 2010 (virender)