The State of H.P. vs Jagdish Ram

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 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The undisputed facts are that the accused Jagdish Ram was working as Junior Basic Training Teacher (JBT) at Government Primary School (GPS) Bhaira, during the year 1984. He applied for grant of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) whereby he alongwith his family members, i.e. his father, wife, two sons and one daughter were to travel to Kanya Kumari and back during the period 19.05.1985 to 03.06.1985. He withdrew an advance amount of Rs. 6400/-.

On his purported return after availing the Leave Travel Concession, the accused Jagdish Ram submitted a final LTC bill. He thereafter received a sum of Rs. 1813.25/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 6400/- 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 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 Minakshi Travels. According to the prosecution, the bus No. MLK 944, in which the accused allegedly traveled, did not belong to M/s Minakshi Travels and never went to Kanya Kumari. Specimen hand writing of the accused was taken and the specimen hand writing alongwith disputed documents was sent to the examiner of questioned documents and their opinions were received.

Jagdish Ram 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. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that it was the accused who filled in the receipts.

The case of the prosecution is that M/s Minakshi Travels is owned by Shri B.D. Gupta, but he could not be examined since he had expired. 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. PW Raj Rishi Mahajan has stated that M/s New Minakshi Travels was in existence and owned by Shri. B.D. Gupta.

The case of the prosecution is that M/s Minakshi Travels did not exist, therefore, presumption should be raised that the receipt is forged. But, possibility of Shri B.D. Gupta issuing receipts in the name of a fictitious firm to avoid payment of taxes cannot be ruled-out. The prosecution has not examined the heirs of Shri B.D. Gupta or produced any other record to show that M/s Minakshi Travels does not exist. 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.

Prosecution has miserably failed to lead any evidence that the bus in question never went to Kanya Kumari, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.