The State of H.P. vs Kartar Singh

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 Kartar Singh was working as Junior Basic Training Teacher (JBT) at Government Primary School (GPS) Amb, during the year 1984. He applied for grant of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) whereby he alongwith his family members, i.e. his wife and three sons were to travel to Kanya Kumari and back during the period 17.09.1984 to 04.10.1984.

On his purported return after availing the Leave Travel Concession, the accused Kartar Singh submitted a final LTC bill of Rs. 6814/- and received payment for the same.

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 and M/s Chetna Travels. During investigation it was found that no such agencies actually existed. It is further the case of the prosecution that the vouchers in the name of M/s New Minakshi Travels and M/s Chetna Travels had been filled in by one Salig Ram. According to the prosecution, the bus No. RRG 371, in which the accused allegedly traveled, belonged to PW Ram Avtar Agarwal and never went to Kanya Kumari. Specimen hand writings 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.

Kartar Singh 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 Kartar Singh, which were examined by PW Subhashish Dey. There is no dispute with regard to these documents.

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. 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. The prosecution only examined PW Raj Rishi Mahajan. Even this witness is not sure whether B.D. Gupta was running a firm under the name and style of M/s New Minakshi Travels. However, he clearly admitted that B.D. Gupta was operating a travel agency. 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. 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. To the same extent is the statement of PW Makhan Singh.

Next we come to the alleged receipt issued by Chetna Travels. The prosecution has led no evidence to show whether it made any efforts to find out whether the company named as M/s Chetna Travels exists or not. The receipt issued by Chetna Travels gives the address of this Travel Agency, but no effort was made to find out the details of the company.

The bus in question, No. RRG 371 was owned by PW Ram Avtar Agarwal. According to him, this bus never went to Kanya Kumari, but he admitted in his cross-examination that he used to hire-out his bus to many travel agents. He did not produce the record of the relevant year to show as to whom he hired-out the bus. According to him, he did not maintain any such record. Admittedly, Ram Avtar Agarwal used to hire-out his buses and the possibility of his bus being hired-out to M/s New Minakshi Travel or M/s Chetna Travels cannot be ruled out. It would be pertinent to mention that when a person travels through the aegis of a travel agent, it is not necessary that the vehicle in which he travels belongs to the travel agent. The Travel agent is only required to make arrangements for the travel of the person. 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.

The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that bus No. RRG 371 never traveled to Kanya Kumari or back. Therefore, the learned trial court was justified in acquitting the accused. We find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.