The State of H.P. vs Salig 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 Salig Ram was working as Junior Basic Training Teacher (JBT) at Government Primary School (GPS) Chururu, during the year 1984. He applied for grant of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) whereby he alongwith his family members, i.e. his wife, two daughters and four sons were to travel to Kanya Kumari and back. He withdrew an advance amount of Rs. 7200/-.

On his purported return after availing the Leave Travel Concession, the accused submitted a final LTC bill of Rs. 9485/-. He thereafter received a sum of Rs. 2285/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 7200/- 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 Gopal Travels and Kamal Tourist Bus Service. 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 Gopal Travels and Kamal Tourist Bus Service had been filled in by the accused. According to the prosecution, the bus No. MLS 8835, in which the accused allegedly traveled, belonged to B.D. Gupta 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.

Accused has not denied the 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 only question which arises for decision 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, which were examined by PW N.C. Sood. There is no dispute with regard to these documents.

The case of the prosecution is that M/s Gopal 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, however, the prosecution did not examine Shri B.D. Gupta, but examined PW Birbal. Even this witness is not sure whether B.D. Gupta was running a firm under the name and style of M/s Gopal Travels. However, he clearly admitted that B.D. Gupta was operating as a travel agent. A 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 Gopal Travels, which firm may or may not existed.

Next we come to the alleged receipt issued by Kamal Tourist Bus Service. The prosecution has led no evidence to show whether it made any efforts to find out whether the company named as Kamal Tourist Bus Service exists or not. The receipt issued by Kamal Tourist Bus Service gives the address of this Travel Agency, but no effort was made to find out the details of the company. 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. MLS 8835 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.