The State of H.P. vs Sukhraj

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 03.11.1998, delivered by the learned Special Judge, Una, in Corruption Case No. 3 of 1994, whereby the accused has been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 457, 468, 471 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The undisputed facts are that the accused Sukhraj was working as Teacher under the employment of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. He was posted in District Una at the relevant time. He applied for grant of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) for traveling along with his family members. The accused submitted a final LTC bill of Rs. 4739/-, which was paid to him.

In the year 1986, the police at Hamirpur received information that many teachers working in the Education Department had withdrawn amounts against LTC claims on the basis of fictitious LTC bills. These matters were got investigated into, including the present case.

During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused and his family members had not actually performed the journey from Chandigarh to Kanya Kumari or back and had submitted forged receipts and bus tickets. According to the prosecution, the accused submitted bills allegedly issued by Tinkoo Travels, which were forged, because no travel agency in the name and style of Tinkoo Travels existed. The prosecution case is that the accused used this forged and fictitious vouchers for illegally withdrawing the amount in question from the government. It was further alleged that bus No. DEP 3836, in which the accused along with family members allegedly traveled to Kanya Kumari had not been entered at Police Check Post at Kanya Kumari during the relevant period.

The accused did not deny the fact that he submitted the claims and obtained the amount. His case is that he actually traveled from Chandigarh to Kanya Kumari and back along with his family members. Therefore, there is no necessity to deal with a large portion of the evidence led by the prosecution. The most important document, which the prosecution should have proved was hand writing of the accused on the receipt of M/s Tinkoo Travels, Ex. PW-3/A, along with its copy, Ex. PW-10/A, filed with the LTC bills. These documents were not sent to the examiner. There is nothing on record to show who signed these documents. PW-14 Mehar Chand, the Investigating Officer, states that during the course of investigation, he found that Tinkoo Travels does not exists and bus No. DEP 3836 does not belong to the said Travel Agency and therefore, he came to the conclusion that the accused have submitted false and fictitious bills.

The accused does not deny that he submitted the LTC bills and in support thereof submitted the receipt purportedly issued by M/s Tinkoo Travels. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that this document has been forged by the accused. No witness has deposed to this effect.

The prosecution case is that a presumption should be raised that this document is forged on the basis of statements of certain prosecution witnesses. Zora Singh was the owner of bus No. DEP 3836. According to him, he never issued receipt, Ex. PW3/A. No record has been produced by Zora Singh to support the allegation that he had not placed the bus in question at the disposal of Tinkoo Travel Agency. The log-book of the bus has also not been produced, which could have shown where the bus went during this period. Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused did not travel in bus No. DEP 3836 owned by Zora Singh, the possibility cannot be ruled out that M/s Tinkoo Travels used some other bus with forged registration certificate and number plate. 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.

PW Mohan Chand Malhotra stated that he is not the owner of bus No. DEP 3836. He is alleged to be owner of Tinkoo Travels. According to him, Ex. PW-3/A is not on the letter pad of his company. He, however, admitted that there may be other travel agencies in the name and style of M/s Tinkoo Travels.

In view of the above discussion, 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.