The State of H.P. vs Shiv Dev Singh 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 Shiv Dev Singh was working as Junior Basic Training Teacher (JBT) at Government Primary School (GPS) Daloh, during the year 1984. He applied for grant of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) whereby he alongwith his family members, i.e. his wife, one daughter and two sons were to travel to Kanya Kumari and back. He withdrew an advance amount of Rs. 4500/-.

On his purported return after availing the Leave Travel Concession, the accused Shiv Dev Singh submitted a final LTC bill of Rs. 6037/-. He thereafter received a sum of Rs. 1807.50/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 4500/- 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 India Tourist Bus Service. 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 India Tourist Bus Service had been filled in by accused Salig Ram. According to the prosecution, the bus No. DEP 3920, in which the accused allegedly traveled, belonged to PW Zora Singh 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.

Shiv Dev 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 Shiv Dev Singh, 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, no evidence was led by the prosecution to show that the specimen handwritings of Salig Ram was compared with any disputed writings. The prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to show that accused Salig Ram filled in the form. There is no evidence against him. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Salig Ram has fictitiously made entries in some of the receipts.

The prosecution case is that a presumption should be raised that this document is forged on the basis of statements of certain prosecution witnesses. PW Zora Singh was the owner of bus No. DEP 3920. According to him bus never went to Kanya Kumari, but was deputed from Delhi to Jaipur. He has stated these facts on the basis of some register, which has not been produced. Even the log-book of the bus has not been produced in Court. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of PW Zora Singh. It also stands established from the statement of Zora Singh that he used to hire-out his bus to many travel agencies including M/s Panikar Travel Agency Delhi. Possibility cannot be ruled out that M/s Panikar Travel Agency Delhi had in turn hired-out the bus to India Tourist Bus Service. 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.