Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2303 (RAJ)

Shobha Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2009-11-06

GOVIND MATHUR

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - To assail the validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 8.4.1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara affirming the finding of conviction and imposing sentence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara under the judgment dated 6.11.1987, this revision petition, as per provision of Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., is preferred. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that one Dr. Ramchandra Goyal, Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer, Maleriya, Banswara submitted a written report (Ex.-P/1) at Police Station Banswara on 4.12.1981 stating therein that on 24.10.1981 accused Shobha Lal, a regional worker obtained sum of Rs.3571.57 for disbursement of salary for the month of October, 1981, but out of that he misappropriated a sum of Rs.2917.87. 3. On the basis of complaint aforesaid, a case was registered against the revision petitioner and the complainant Dr. Ramchandra Goyal for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. 4. After regular investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the Chief Judicial Magistrate framed a charge for Section 409 IPC against both the accused. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, during the course of trial, recorded statements of 14 persons to support prosecution story and statements of two persons in defence. The statements of accused person as per provision of Section 313 Cr.P.C. too were recorded. Certain documents were also exhibited and after considering available evidence, learned trial court by its judgment dated 6.11.1987 acquitted co-accused Dr. Ramchandra Goyal and convicted the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 409 IPC. Accordingly, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- was awarded. 5. A challenge given to the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 6.11.1987 came to be rejected by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 8.4.1991. Hence, this revision petition is preferred. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that, the trial court utterly failed to appreciate that the amount in question was handed-over by the accused to Dr. Ramchandra Goyal and in this regard a receipt was given, which is available as Ex.-D/1. The trial court found the receipt aforesaid, a forged document absolutely on flimsy ground and without examining the fact that Dr.Ompraksh Gupta (PW-13) in quite unambiguous terms stated that the receipt bears signatures of Dr. Ramchandra Goyal. Ramchandra Goyal and in this regard a receipt was given, which is available as Ex.-D/1. The trial court found the receipt aforesaid, a forged document absolutely on flimsy ground and without examining the fact that Dr.Ompraksh Gupta (PW-13) in quite unambiguous terms stated that the receipt bears signatures of Dr. Ramchandra Goyal. It is emphasised that in view of the receipt Ex.-D/1, a charge for the commission of an offence under Section 409 IPC has not been established beyond shadow of doubt. 7. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the trial court, while holding the document concerned forged, has taken into consideration the finding given by handwriting expert and also the fact that on the day the amount is said to be paid to Dr. Ramchandra Goyal, the accused himself was not present in the office and this fact is adequately proved by the statement of prosecution witness. 8. In view of the contention aforesaid, I have examined the record. Ex.-D/1 is small receipt that mentions that a sum of Rs.2917.17 was received on 5.1.1981 by accused Ramchandra from Shobha Lal, S.F.W. The receipt aforesaid also bears signatures of the receipent within the marks "A" and "B". 9. True it is, the handwriting expert has stated that the recital of the receipt is not in handwriting of Dr. Ramchandra Goyal, however, no definite finding is given by him with regard to signatures enfolded within the marks "A" and "B". A definite statement in this regard is given by Dr. Omprakash Gupta (PW- 13) by stating that Ex.D-2 i= ij A ls B gLrk{kj Mk- jkepUnz xks;y ds gSa tks eSa igpkurk gawA 10. Dr. Ramchandra Goyal in the terms above has specifically stated that the receipt bears signature of Dr. Ramchandra Goyal. It is also relevant to note that the trial court reached at the specific conclusion that conduct of Dr. Ramchandra Goyal subsequent to the incident was not like a normal person and at least was contrary to an efficient civil servant. The trial court also said that Dr. Ramchandra Goyal was ready to pay salary which was due because of the amount missing and that is subject matter in present case. Ramchandra Goyal subsequent to the incident was not like a normal person and at least was contrary to an efficient civil servant. The trial court also said that Dr. Ramchandra Goyal was ready to pay salary which was due because of the amount missing and that is subject matter in present case. Learned trial court found the document forged on the count that the handwriting expert gave a finding about the notings made therein and as per that the content was not written by Dr. Ramchandra Goyal. May those be, admittedly, not in the handwriting of Dr. Ramchandra Goyal but it is an accepted position that no definite finding by the handwriting expert regarding signatures of Dr. Ramchandra Goyal, available on the receipt concerned was given. However, Dr. Omprakash Gupta (PW-13) definitely stated that the signatures are of Dr. Ramchandra Goyal, thus, it cannot be said that the receipt was thoroughly forged or prepared by accused to defend himself. 11. As a matter of fact, the signature available on receipt creates a doubt and it may be a possibility that the amount in question would have been received by Dr. Ramchandra Goyal. It is quite a normal to note down contents of receipt in others handwriting and to have signatures of the receipent. The main ingredient to establish receipt of money or any other article is signatures on receipent and in the present case the receipt bears that, thus the fact regarding forgery in signatures is not at all established. The conduct of Dr. Ramchandra Goyal, who was ready and willing to deposit the amount aforesaid by making payment of salary to the staff also create doubts in the matter. Abnormal conduct of Dr. Ramchandra Goyal has also been noticed by the trial court. In such circumstances, I am of considered opinion that the trial court committed an error which is a defect of serious nature and that resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Appellate Court also failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. 12. Accordingly, this revision petition deserves acceptance and therefore, is allowed. The conviction recorded against the accused Shobha Lal by the judgment dated 6.11.1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Case No.1856/1982, as affirmed under the judgment dated 8.4.1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Cr. Appeal No.77/1987 is quashed. The sentence so awarded stands quashed. 12. Accordingly, this revision petition deserves acceptance and therefore, is allowed. The conviction recorded against the accused Shobha Lal by the judgment dated 6.11.1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Case No.1856/1982, as affirmed under the judgment dated 8.4.1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Cr. Appeal No.77/1987 is quashed. The sentence so awarded stands quashed. The petitioner is acquitted from the charge of committing an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC, by extending benefit of doubt. 13. It is relevant to note here that accused has already died and this Court has taken his legal representatives on record to pursue the present petition vide order dated 12.1.2009, as such, they will be at liberty to agitate their rights and cause, if any accrued, as a consequent to the present order.Revision partly allowed. *******