Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sant Ram vs State Of H.P. on 29 October, 2014
Bench: Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 167 OF 2012
SANT RAM APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2012
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2352 OF 2011
O R D E R
Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2012
Heard Mr. Anil Nag, learned counsel for the
appellant, and Mr. Suryanarayanan Singh, learned
Additional Advocate General for the respondent –
State of Himachal Pradesh.
2. The appellant, Sant Ram, stands convicted
under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 and Rules 11 and 18 of the H.P. Forest
Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.
Signature Not Verified
3.
Digitally signed by
Rajesh Dham
Regard being had to the two contentions
Date: 2014.10.31
16:58:02 IST
Reason:
raised by Mr. Anil Nag, we are not required to state
the facts in detail. Suffice it to say, the
2
appellant was working as a Forest Guard at the Check
Post Chambi in the year 1981-82. The Divisional
Forest Officer had granted permit Exb. No. 41/81-82
for 118 pieces of cut logs. The first lot on the
basis of a challan passed through the Check Post and
the concerned truck carried 71 cut logs. Though
there is some dispute in that regard and certain
aspects have been highlighted by the learned trial
Judge as well as by the High Court, the said facts
need not be adverted to. So far as the balance lot
is concerned, as alleged by the prosecution, the
vehicle carried 91 logs vide challan No.
Ex. PW-20-B. A carbon copy of the challan was
produced by the prosecution. Learned trial Judge
accepted the same as admissible in evidence and the
High Court agreed with the same. A finding has been
recorded that the entry that had been made in the
carbon copy was not recorded in the Khata register
and, in any way, 91 logs as alleged to be have
passed through the check gate was beyond the permit.
4. Mr. Anil Nag, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, has submitted that a carbon copy
could not have been held as admissible in evidence
3
without any foundation being made as regards the
non-production of the primary evidence. The second
contention that has been canvassed by Mr. Nag is
that there has been manifest manipulation in the
carbon copy. We shall deal with the first
contention first.
5. In the carbon copy there is the signature of
the appellant. The signature to the naked eyes is
quite clear that it is the original signature of the
appellant. The same has been proven by expert
evidence, PW-42, to be the signature of the
appellant. Assuming there is manipulation, fact
remains, certain cut logs passed through the check
gate. There is no cavil over the fact that there is
no entry whatsoever in respect of the said transport
in the Khata register. Thus, it is obvious that the
appellant allowed certain cut logs to cross the
barrier.
6. In view of the aforesaid, both the
submissions advanced by Mr. Nag, learned counsel for
the appellant, which can really be put into one,
melt into insignificance and, therefore, we are
unable to accept the same. The said submissions do
4
not commend acceptance. Hence, we do not find any
justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment.
7. In the result, the Appeal, being devoid of
any merit, stands dismissed. As the appellant is on
bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and he be taken
into custody forthwith.
Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2012
In view of the judgment delivered in Criminal
Appeal No. 167 of 2012, Sant Ram Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh, as the charge of conspiracy is
there, we have no hesitation in holding that the
said judgment shall apply on all fours to the case
at hand. Therefore, the Appeal, being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed.
2. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds
are cancelled and he be taken into custody
forthwith.
Criminal Appeal No. 2352 of 2011
In view of the judgment delivered in Criminal
Appeal No. 167 of 2012, Sant Ram Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh, as the charge of conspiracy is
5
there, we have no hesitation in holding that the
said judgment shall apply on all fours to the case
at hand. Therefore, the Appeal, being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed.
2. Since vide order dated 27.06.2011, prayer for
exemption from surrendering was allowed in respect
of the appellant and continued vide order
28.11.2011, he be taken into custody forthwith.
...........................J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI; ...........................J.
OCTOBER 29, 2014 (UDAY UMESH LALIT)
6
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 167/2012
SANT RAM Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondent(s)
(with office report)
WITH
Crl.A. No. 333/2012
(With Office Report)
Crl.A. No. 2352/2011
Date : 29/10/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
For Appellant(s)
Crl.A. 167/2012 & Mr. Anil Nag,Adv.
Crl.A. 333/2012 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Adv.
Crl.A. 2352/2011 Mr. Amit Pawan,Adv. (NOT PRESENT)
For Respondent(s) Mr. Suryanarayanan Singh, A.A.G.
Ms. Pragati Neekhara, Adv.
Mr. Arun K. Sinha,Adv.
Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2012 Appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. 7 As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith. Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2012 The Appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith. Criminal Appeal No. 2352 of 2011 The Appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Since vide order dated 27.06.2011, prayer for exemption from surrendering was allowed in respect of the appellant and continued vide order 28.11.2011, he be taken into custody forthwith.
(RAJESH DHAM) (RENUKA SADANA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(signed order is placed on the file)