State of H.P. vs Prakash Chand and Others

R.B. Misra, J. 1. The present Criminal Appeals have come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to judgment dated 27.5.1999, passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No. 17-I/ 1992, acquitting respondents No. 1 to 13 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 181 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, except Prakash Chand Gupta respondent No.3, who has been held guilty for the offence u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code for cheating and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment.

At the instance of Dy.S.P. State CID, Shimla, an FIR No.6/85 was lodged alleging that Rattan Lal Gupta respondent accused No.2, Drawing Master, Government High School Bharari, accused-respondent No.3 Prakash Chand Gupta, have been collecting money from many persons and were issuing Nursery Training Certificate of "Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad" in collusion with Satish Chander Mishra. It also reveals that they have also brought blank forms and used typewriter in Palsara Printing Press, Sarkaghat, brought for repair for the purpose. It seems that passing of Nursery training was necessary in order to seek admission in JBT Unit of Sarkaghat.

On completion of investigation, accused-respondent No.1 Satish Chander Mishra was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 271, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas, accused-respondents No.2 & 3 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and accused Nos. 4 to 9 for the offence punishable under Sections 181 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, accused-respondents No. 10 to 29 for offences under Sections 420 and 181 of the Indian Penal Code as well as accused-respondent No.30 was charged for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It has been brought to our notice that accused-respondent No.6 Hem Raj son of Jolan Ram Gupta and Accused-respondent No.9 Gulab Singh son of Ganga Ram had died during the course of trial and Rita Chandel has also died during the pendency of the present Criminal Appeal. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 49 prosecution witnesses, whereas, the accused-respondents through their statements u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., have denied the prosecution case.

The main charges against Rattan Lal Gupta and Prakash Chand Gupta were that they acted as coconspirator with accused-respondent No.1 Satish Chander Mishra who used to procure certificates and thereafter accused-respondent No.2 Rattan Lal Gupta and Prakash Chand Gupta accused-respondent No.3 sold these certificates to the persons at Sarkaghat enabling them to seek admission in JBT condensed course at Sarkaghat. Further the prosecution case is that accused-respondent No.2 Rattan Lal Gupta and accused-respondent No.2 Prakash Chand Gupta used to get typed these certificates on the typewriter Ex.P1 which was given for repair with Palsara Printing Press at Sarkaghat. Whereas, accused-respondent No.30 was mainly charged that he had concealed the letter received from the Government of Bihar to the effect that "Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad" is not a recognized institution.

After perusal of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, it appears that none of the prosecution witnesses including Pws 1 to 49 have categorically proved that Rattan Lal Gupta accused-respondent No.2 had sold these certificates and accused-respondent No.3 Prakash Chand Gupta has deliberately concealed the letter received from the Bihar Government. PW.1 Ashwani Kumar has denied that he has purchased certificate from Satish and Rattan. PW.2 Sukh Dev has also denied similarly. PW.4 Keshav Ram proprietor of Palsara Printing Press has also denied that the typewriter kept for repair, accused-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 used to type the letters. As such, proprietor of Palsara Printing Press has not supported the prosecution case. PW.42 Kanta Kumar the then clerk in the Office of Directorate of Education has also denied that any letter dated 8.3.1984 was received from the Government of Bihar indicating that "Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad" is not recognized institution. PW.42 has also deposed that said letter was given to the then Superintendent accused-respondent No.30. The prosecution witnesses, however, have not proved that accused-respondent No.2 Rattan Lal Gupta and accused-respondent No.3 Prakash Chand Gupta had entered into criminal conspiracy and sold the certificates. Further there is no evidence against accused-respondent No.3 Prakash Chand that he forged the certificates or entered into criminal conspiracy with remaining accused persons for the purpose of forging the certificates in question.

PW.3 Jai Singh had only stated that accused-respondent No.3 Prakash Chand Gupta had sold him three nursery training certificates for `4500/- and these certificates were sold by accused-respondent No.3 to PW.3 of `4500/- in the name of three girls, namely, Usha Kumari, Indra Devi and Champa Devi, to the relations of PW.3 Jai Singh. PW.3 Jai Singh a person aged about 90 years, a freedom fighter has stated that these girls had not undergone training of Nursery in "Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad" and accused-respondent No.3 had manged and sold those certificates of `4500/- to him. However, PW.3 could not get admission for his relation in JBT condensed course at Sarkaghat, as the certificates were found forged and he had demanded back of `4500/- from Prakash Chand Gupta (accused-respondent No.3) to which Prakash Chand Gupta had refused. Such certificates, alleged to have been sold to PW.3 Jai Singh, were not exhibited in trial. However, trial court had not disbelieved the testimony of PW.3 that a person 90 years of age, who has lived his normal life will falsely implicate any person, as such, accused-respondent No.3 Prakash Chand was rightly held guilty of offence u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code, for which he has been convicted and sentenced till rising of the Court and fine of `5000/-.

So far the allegations against accused-respondents Pritam Singh, Gulab Singh son of Chaju Ram and Bhag Singh that false a information by way of sworn in the affidavit before the Executive Magistrates and Oath Commissioners were given by them, meaning thereby, the main offence against these accused-respondents is u/s 181 of Indian Penal Code. However, on analysis of the records, we find that Executive Magistrate and Oath Commissioner have not made any complaint in writing u/s 181 IPC against these accused persons. Whereas, FIR in the case was registered at the instance of Desh Raj Sharma, Dy.S.P. State CID. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, learned trial court has rightly found that complaint u/s 181 IPC at the instance of Desh Raj Sharma is not maintainable against above accused persons as none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that accused abetted the commission of offence. Even the principal of JBT traninig school had not deposed that the certificates found to be false but simply stated that "Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad" was not found to be a recognized institution for nursery training by the Government of Bihar, as such, admissions of candidates were cancelled. Moreover, as per Ex.D1 which is a prospectus of "Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad", it appears that these accused had acted in good faith and not by way of criminal conspiracy, as such, above mentioned accused were also found guilty of offence u/s 181 IPC. So far charge against accused No.10 to 29, viz, Nirmala Devi, Kusum Lata, Pushpa Devi, Chander Prabha, Krishani Devi, Sumna Devi, Padma Devi, Saroj Bala, Shakuntla Devi, Sita Devi, Gita Bhardwaj, Shakuntla Devi, Pushpa Gupta, Sheela Devi, Anita Sharma, Shakuntla Devi wife of Desh Raj Sharma, Rita Chandel, Shitla Devi, Karuna Thakur and Neena Kumari, that they had given false information by way of sworn in affidavit before the Executive Magistrates and the Oath Commissioners. It appears that no complaint was lodged by Executive Magistrate or Oath Commissioner. Therefore, the complaint lodged at the instance of Desh Raj Sharma, Dy.S.P.,CID, cannot be said to have been the proper complaint u/s 181 of IPC.

Regarding the charge against these accused that they cheated the principal JBT school, Sarkaghat, by way of producing false affidavit and the certificates, it is pertinent indicate that none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the certificates were forged one. Even the Vice Principal of JBT school had not deposed that accused persons had cheated them he however stated that the institution of "Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad" was not recognized, therefore, admissions were cancelled. It is no body''s case that on the basis of forged certificates somebody got admission and was benefited, in these circumstances, trial court on analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record has rightly found that accused except Prakash Chand Gupta has rightly been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 181 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, as the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and failed to bring home the guilt against the remaining accused.

So far as the conclusion that accused No.3 Prakash Chand Gupta was held guilty for the offence u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in the facts and circumstances, the findings arrived at by learned trial court need no interference. The incident is of 25 years back, in these circumstances, no fruitful purpose shall be served to take a different view and alter the sentence awarded against accused-respondent No.3 Prakash Chand Gupta. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

The bail bonds furnished by theaccused/respondents are hereby discharged.