State of H.P. vs Raj Kumar and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—State has appealed against the judgment, dated 30.3.2009, of learned Special Judge, Chamba, whereby Respondent Raj Kumar and others, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, have been acquitted.

Case of the prosecution, which led to the charging and trial of the Respondents, may be noticed. Respondent Punnu Ram was Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Gagla in Chamba District. He is alleged to have forged a certificate in favor of his son Respondent Raj Kumar to the effect that he belongs to a scheduled caste. Using that certificate as genuine, Respondent Raj Kumar is alleged to have availed of a grant of 5000/- from the office of SDM, Chamba, and also a grant of 18,000/-under Indira Awas Yojna for construction of a house. Respondents Bhupinder Singh, Patwari, Krishan Lal, Secretary Gram Panchayat and Dharam Chand, a Member of Block Development Committee, are alleged to have recommended the sanction and the release of money in favor of Respondent Raj Kumar under Indira Awas Yojna.

Matter was reported to Vigilance Cell of State Police by Jagat Ram, Up Pardhan and Gian Chand and Rattan Chand, Members of Gram Panchayat, Gagla, vide complaint Ext. PW1/A. Investigation was conducted. During the course of investigation, Photostat copy of certificate, allegedly forged by Respondent Punnu Ram, was seized. The same is Ext. PW6/A. It was sent to Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures on it with the standard signatures of Punnu Ram, but the Handwriting Expert did not express any opinion, saying that Ext. PW6/A being a Photostat copy, it was not possible to give any definite opinion. Investigating Agency also recorded the statement of an official from the office of Tehsildar, per which certificate, in question, had not been issued from the office of Tehsildar.

On completion of investigation, report, u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, along with relevant papers, was filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, who after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned defense counsel, and perusing the record, felt that a prima-face case, under the aforesaid provisions of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, was made out against the Respondents. They were charged accordingly. On their pleading not guilty, they were tried.

Prosecution examined 32 witnesses, besides proving a large number of documents to bring the charge home to the Respondents.

Respondents did not deny that benefit under Indira Awas Yojana had been availed by Respondent Raj Kumar and he also got a grant of Rs. 5000/-, on account of his house having been damaged due to heavy rains.

Learned trial Court concluded that case against the Respondents did not stand proved, beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, acquitted the Respondents.

We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned Counsel, representing the Respondents and gone through the entire record.

Application, which was moved by Respondent Raj Kumar, is Ext. PW6/B. He claimed the benefit of the aforesaid grant of Rs. 5000/- and grant under Indira Awas Yojna, on account of his being a member of IRDP family and also on account of his being a member of a scheduled caste. That suggests that he made use of certificate Ext. PW6/A, per which he belongs to a scheduled caste. Certificate purports to have been issued by some Executive Magistrate.

Prosecution examined a witness from the office of Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, Chamba. She is PW-9 Jyoti Vaidya. She stated that as per register maintained in the office of Tehsildar Chamba, certificate bearing No. 293, as Ext. PW6/A bears, is issued in the name of Hafij and not in the name of Raj Kumar. There are a number of Executive Magistrates in a District. All SD Ms, all Tehsildars and all Naib Tehsildars, are Executive Magistrates. Typed words below stamped impression ''Executive Magistrate'' are "Executive Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chamba". That means, the certificate could have been issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chamba. No witness from the office of SDM, Chamba was examined by the prosecution. Also, prosecution did not examine the Executive Magistrate, whose signatures, on Ext. PW6/A, are alleged to have been forged. It was Executive Magistrate who could have positively stated that the certificate is not signed by him. In the absence of testimony of the Executive Magistrate, by whom the certificate purports to have been signed, it cannot be held conclusively that the certificate is forged.

Also, we find no evidence on record indicating that Respondent Raj Kumar does not belong to a scheduled caste.

In view of the above stated position, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.