Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Chhape Ram Premi on 6 April, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.A. No. 68/2011.
Reserved on: 23.3.2015 Decided on: 6.4.2015 ___________________________________________________ State of H.P. ...appellant.
Versus
Chhape Ram Premi. ...Respondent.
______________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No For the appellant: Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent: Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate.
_________________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 30.10.2010 rendered by the Special Judge (Forest), Shimla in Corruption Case No. 6-S/7 of 2007, whereby the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the "accused" for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under section 420, 465 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and under section 13 (2) of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:25 :::HCHP 2 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been acquitted.
.
2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the accused while working as Divisional Manager, Forest Corporation, Dharamshala himself certified his date of birth as 24.3.1942. On this strength, accused retired on 31.3.2000 whereas his date of birth was 24.3.1941 and he was due to retire on 31.3.1999. Thus, in this way, he obtained pecuniary advantage of salary of one year unauthorizedly. This amounted to misconduct on his part attracting provisions of section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was asked to submit proof of date of birth and he submitted a duplicate certificate of matriculation examination issued by the Punjab University, in which he changed his date of birth from 1941 to 1942 and, as such, committed forgery with a view to cause unlawful and wrongful loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The State was made to pay him salary for one year and he used forged document as genuine for the purpose of cheating. FIR No. 2/2004 was registered on 5.6.2004 at Police Station, Anti-
Corruption zone, Shimla. The service book and other ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:25 :::HCHP 3 documents were taken into possession besides the alleged duplicate matriculation certificate claimed to .
have been tampered with by the accused. The date of birth was also got verified from the Punjab University, Chandigarh. Police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities.
3. Prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused.
Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He has denied the case of the prosecution in entirety. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove.
4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused.
5. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned counsel for the accused has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:25 :::HCHP 47. According to PW-1 Roop Lal, Senior Assistant, Forest-A Section Secretariat, the service book .
Ex.PW-1/A-4 was attested by the accused himself whereas the service book card Ex.PW-1/A-5 showed his date of birth as 24.3.1941. He has also produced before the police duplicate matriculation certificate Ex.PW-1/D. He has identified the signatures of the accused on letter Ex.PW-1/C-1 through which he had reiterated that his date of birth was 24.3.1942.
8. PW-2 Ruma Seth has produced documents Ex.PW-2/B, Ex.PW-2/C and Ex.PW-2/D. PW-3 Ashok Kumar gave to the police personal file Ex.PW-3/C comprising 175 pages through memo Ex.PW-3/B. PW-4 R.K. Kapoor had received letter Ex.PW-4/A and conducted verification of date of birth of the accused. He submitted his report Ex.PW-4/C. He concluded that the actual date of birth of the accused was 24.3.1941.
Accused himself attested his service particulars in Ex.PW-1/A-4. He was supplied photocopy of duplicate matriculation certificate Ex.PW-1/D and he found the figure '1' had been changed. He has admitted that service card Ex.PW-1/A-5 used to be maintained in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:25 :::HCHP 5 the Accountant General Office prior to 1977 and according to it, the date of birth was 24.3.1941.
.
9. The verification was got conducted from the Punjab University, Chandigarh and PW-6 Karan Kumar Soni on receipt of application for issuance of duplicate certificate issued abstract Ex.PW-6/B. The photocopy of gazette result was Ex.PW-6/D and verification was Ex.PW-6/E. He has admitted that in application Ex.PW-
6/B, the date of birth was mentioned as 24.3.1941, which was corrected by him. He was not sure that who has done the tampering.
10. PW-7 Sanjay Sood has proved gazette notification Ex.PW-7/A and date of birth was 24.3.1941.
PW-15 Kuldeep Singh, Senior Assistant, Punjab University, Chandigarh has proved copy of gazette notification and duplicate matriculation certificate Ex.PW-1/D bore his initials. According to him, the date of birth was initially 24.3.1941, which was changed in duplicate matriculation certificate Ex.PW-1/D as 24.3.1942 by tampering the word 'two' and 'one' has been replaced by 'two'. He could not say who had done it. PW-17 Vinod Kumar on receipt of Ex.PW-17/A ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:25 :::HCHP 6 alongwith Annexures Ex.PW-17/A-1 to A-4 recorded FIR Ex.PW-17/B. PW-16 Asha Rana seized record through .
memo Ex.PW-1/A. PW-18 Jai Gopal Guleria was Naib Tehsildar, Protocol, Kullu before whom, accused's specimen signatures Ex.PW-8/C-1 to C-14 were obtained. PW-19 Parmod Shukla was the Investigating Officer.
11. The accused has appeared as DW-3. He has admitted that his correct date of birth was entered in Ex.PW-1/A-5 and mistake occurred when seniority list was issued in January, 1985, April, 1985 and October, 1985. His date of birth was shown as 23.4.1941 in January and April, 1985.
12. PW-8 Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan gave her report Ex.PW-8/E. She had come to the conclusion that the signatures marked Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 belong to one and the same person. Q-1 were the signatures of accused on verification Ex.PW-4/C in service book. Ex.PW-1/D duplicate matriculation certificate was sent to PW-9 Visheshwar Sharma, Assistant Director (Document and Photocopy), F.S.L. He examined the documents and gave his report Ex.PW-9/A. He opined that the word 'T' and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:25 :::HCHP 7 figure '2' did not tally with other similar words in the document. He has admitted that no typewriter was sent .
for examination purposes.
13. Accused was appointed in the Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation on 1.4.1967. Accused has disclosed his date of birth as 24.3.1941 as per Ex.PW-
1/A-5. His specimen signatures were obtained in the presence of PW-18 Jai Gopal Guleria, Naib Tehsildar, Protocol, Kullu on 15.7.2005. These were sent for comparison to F.S.L., Junga. It is evident from the record that only signatures on document were made questioned document and sent to comparison to G.E.Q.D. PW-8 Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan, as noticed hereinabove, gave her opinion Ex.PW-8/E that the signatures sent as specimen to her were of the same person, who has signed Q-1. The prosecution ought to have sent the entire document, i.e. Ex.PW-4/C to prove that all the columns were filled in by the accused.
Moreover, no question has been put to the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he has filled in all the columns of Ex.PW-4/C. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:25 :::HCHP 8
14. The further case of the prosecution was that accused himself signed the communication dated .
25.11.1999 vide Ex.PW-1/C-1 sent to the Secretary (Forest), Government of Himachal Pradesh intimating his date of birth as 24.3.1942. This document has not at all been proved by prosecution. His signatures Ex.PW-1/C-1 should have been made questioned document and sent to the G.E.Q.D. The accused has categorically denied his signatures on the document Ex.PW-1/C-1 when cross-examined. The prosecution has seized the record vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B. However, the most essential document Ex.PW-1/C-1 was not part of the seized record. It was material document, but the same was made available to the investigating agency on 11.7.2006. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused has written that letter.
The accused has retired on 31.3.2000, whereas the duplicate matriculation certificate was submitted on 9.7.2001. It was issued to him on 25.6.2001. He submitted the attested copy of duplicate matriculation certificate to P.C.C.F vide letter Ex.PW-8/A on 9.7.2001.
He was asked by the P.C.C.F on 24.12.2001 to submit ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:25 :::HCHP 9 the original of the duplicate matriculation certificate obtained by him from the Punjab University. On .
30.1.2002, C.F., Kullu after obtaining the original of duplicate matriculation certificate from the accused submitted it to the P.C.C.F. The Assistant Registrar (Certificate), Punjab University issued a confidential letter to the P.C.C.F on 19.3.2002 in response to his request for verification of the matriculation certificate submitted by the accused vide Ex.PW-1/A-13 reflecting the date of birth of the accused as 24.3.1941. It is nowhere stated in Ex.PW-1/A-13 that certificate submitted to the Controller of Exams, Punjab University was interpolated. It was only on 18.5.2002 that some discrepancy in the matriculation certificate of the accused was noticed. There was no interpolation till 19.3.2002. The P.C.C.F. has only got an inquiry conducted of the photocopy of the matriculation certificate. The inquiry report is Ex.PW-1/A-12. The accused has never been associated with the inquiry conducted by C.F. Sundernagar. It is also evident from Ex.DW-3/A that accused has reiterated when he was at the verge of retirement that his date of birth was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:25 :::HCHP 10 24.3.1941. In the service particulars maintained by the Accountant General, the date of birth of the accused was .
recorded as 24.3.1941 vide Annexure PW-1/A-5. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused has changed/tampered his date of birth in Ex.PW-1/D.
15. Learned trial court has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence while acquitting the accused. This Court need not interfere with the well reasoned judgment rendered by the trial court.
16. Accordingly, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
6.4.2015 *awasthi* ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:25 :::HCHP