The State of H.P. vs Ashok Kumar and Another

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 03.11.1998, 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 120B IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The undisputed facts are that the accused Ashok Kumar was working as Junior Basic Training Teacher (JBT) at Government Primary School (GPS) Amroh, during the year 1984. He applied for grant of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) whereby he alongwith his family members, i.e. his mother, wife, two sons and two daughters were to travel to Kanya Kumari and back during the period 29.03.1985 to 15.04.1985. He withdrew an advance amount of Rs. 7400/-.

On his purported return after availing the Leave Travel Concession, the accused Ashok Kumar submitted a final LTC bill of Rs. 10,486/-. He thereafter received a sum of Rs. 3086/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 7400/- paid to him in advance.

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.

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 New Minakshi 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 New Minakshi Travels had been filled in by accused Salig Ram. According to the prosecution, the bus No. MLK 944, in which the accused allegedly traveled, did not belong to M/s New Minakshi Travels and never went to Kanya Kumari. Specimen hand writing of both the accused persons were taken and the specimen hand writing alongwith disputed documents was sent to the examiner of questioned documents and their opinions were received.

Ashok Kumar 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 prosecution sent the admitted and disputed hand writings of accused Ashok Kumar, which were examined by PW S.K. Sexana. There is no dispute with regard to these documents. As far as the documents allegedly filled in by accused Salig Ram are concerned, prosecution has led no evidence whatsoever to show that the said disputed documents have been filled in by accused Salig Ram. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Salig Ram has fictitiously made entries in some of the receipts.

The case of the prosecution is that M/s New Minakshi Travels was owned by Shri B.D. Gupta, but he could not be examined since he had expired. PW Raj Rishi Mahajan has stated that M/s New Minakshi Travels was in existence in the year 1984 and owned by Shri B.D. Gupta. It was the duty of the prosecution to have proved that the Travel agency in question did not exist. This could have been done by either examining the heirs of Shri B.D. Gupta, who would have been the best persons to depose in this behalf, however, the prosecution did not examine Shri B.D. Gupta, but examined PW Raj Rishi Mahajan and one Shri Birbal Dutt. Even these witnesses are not sure whether B.D. Gupta was running a firm under the name and style of M/s New Minakshi Travels. However, they clearly admitted that B.D. Gupta was operating as a travel agent. The possibility cannot be ruled-out that to avoid taxes or for some other reasons Shri B.D. Gupta could have given receipt in the name of M/s New Minakshi Travels, which firm may or may not existed. 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.

In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.