State of Himachal Pradesh vs Jagat Kumar

Surinder Singh, J.—The acquittal of the respondent has been questioned by the State in this appeal for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard and gone through the record.

Precisely, the respondent, hereinafter to be referred as "the accused", was charge-sheeted under the aforesaid sections, on the allegations that he had applied for the renewal of his driving licence No. 22776 dated 5.9.98 alleged to have been issued by the R.T.A. Karnal/ D.T.O. Haryana. The issuing authority was requested to verify the genuineness of the said driving licence. In response, it was informed that the said licence was neither issued nor renewed from their office, as such Registering and Licencing Authority Kalpa at Reckong Peo vide letter Ext. PW1/A sent a communication to the Superintendent of Police, for the registration of the case, which culminated into FIR Ext. PW5/A.

Police investigated the case, took into possession application for renewal of the driving licence Ext. PW2/A and application for medical fitness certificate Ext. PW2/B. Police also took into possession the driving licence Ext. P1 of the accused vide memo Ext. PW4/A and also the verification letters Ext. PW2/C and D respectively issued by the Licencing Authority Karnal.

After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused for the aforesaid offences. He was accordingly charge-sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and at the end of trial, the accused was acquitted, on the ground that there was nothing on record to link him with the alleged offences, hence the present appeal.

Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General referred to the evidence on record and submitted that the learned trial Court has mis-appreciated the evidence.

On the other hand, the impugned judgment of acquittal is supported by Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Learned Counsel appearing for the accused.

On critical examination of the evidence on record, I find that there is no evidence to show that the accused had affixed the stamp or seal on the licence in question so as to make him liable for the offence punishable u/s 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Further the Licencing Authority, Karnal who had issued the clarification was also not been examined, but the prosecution heavily banked upon their response Ext. PW2/D, which was sent by them to the Registering and Licencing Authority, Reckong-Peo reference to their letter No. S.B.K./1-7/2000-2787 dated 5.10.2001, whereas RLA Reckong Peo had sent letter Ext. PW2/C for the verification of the licence of the accused which bears letter No. SDK-1-7(R&LA)/ 2000-2343 dated 24.8.2001. Both the dates and letter numbers in the above communications are irreconcilable. The letter under reference in response to Ex. PW2/D is different from Ext. PW2/C and letter Ext. PW2/D also does not make a reference of the letter Ext. PW2/C above, so what was the information required and what was mentioned in the letter sent by RLA Reckong Peo is not known. Merely on the basis of the response of the Registering & Licencing Authority, Karnal, offences charged cannot be said to have been proved.

Also, I find that vide Ext. PW4/A, the driving licence of the accused was taken into possession in the month of March, whereas letter Ext. PW1/A sent for registration of the case in February alongwith the driving licence of the accused, then its recovery in March i.e. after about one month from the accused is a farce.

Therefore, for the above stated reasons, I do not find any ambiguity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. as such, appeal of the State sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at anytime during the proceedings of this case. Send down the records.