Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1374 (HP)

State of HP v. Mast Ram

2011-03-17

KULDIP SINGH, SURJIT SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, Judge This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 10.8.2001, of learned Special Judge, whereby respondents Mast Ram and Chinta Mani, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 409 and 120-B IPC, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution may be summed up thus. Respondent Mast Ram remained posted as Agriculture Sub Inspector at Kunihar in Distirict Solan, from November, 1985 to February, 1986. In that capacity, it was one of his duties and functions to receive wheat seed, despatched by Deputy Director (Agriculture), Solan and to distribute that wheat seed to farmers. Wheat seed was sold to farmers at subsidized rates of `205/- per quintal. State paid subsidy @ `107/- per quintal. Amount of subsidy used to be claimed by the department on receipt of subsidy bills from Solan Depots. Such bills, in respect of Kunihar Depot, used to be submitted by respondent Mast Ram. Wheat seed used to be distributed, through Cooperative Societies, to the farmers. To assist respondent Mast Ram, respondent Chinta Mani, employed as Secretary with one of the Cooperative Societies, had been deputed. 3. According to the prosecution, during the aforesaid period of posting of respondent Mast Ram at Kunihar, four consignments of wheat seed of 100 quintals each, were sent to Kunihar Depot. He accounted for three consignments, but failed to account for the fourth consignment of 100 quintals wheat seed, which he received against GR Ext. DA, on 26.11.1985. He did not even make entry in respect of that consignment in the stock register. However, while submitting bill of subsidy to the Dy. Director, Agriculture, subsidy amount, on account of this 100 quintal seed, was also included, because subsidy was claimed for four consignments of 100 quintals each. Money received from the farmers, in respect of 100 quintals wheat seed @ `205/- per quintal, had also not been accounted for. The unaccounted consignment of 100 quintals of wheat seed was received by respondent Chintamani, Secretary, on behalf of respondent Mast Ram. The two respondents were thus alleged to have conspired and misappropriated 100 quintals of wheat seed, in prosecution of the alleged conspiracy. 4. On completion of investigation, report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed alongwith relevant papers. The unaccounted consignment of 100 quintals of wheat seed was received by respondent Chintamani, Secretary, on behalf of respondent Mast Ram. The two respondents were thus alleged to have conspired and misappropriated 100 quintals of wheat seed, in prosecution of the alleged conspiracy. 4. On completion of investigation, report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed alongwith relevant papers. Learned Special Judge, after supplying the copies of the report and the attached documents, to both the respondents, and also after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned defence counsel, found that prima-facie case was made out against both the respondents. They were charged under the aforesaid penal provisions of law. They pleaded not guilty and were, therefore, put on trial. 5. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses, besides proving certain documents. However, it did not prove the GR, pertaining to the consignment, in question, though it sent that GR for comparison of some writings and signatures on it, with the specimen writings and signatures of the respondents. It was respondent Mast Ram, who proved this GR, which was submitted by the prosecution with the challan. 6. Learned trial Court acquitted the respondents, holding that there was no evidence on record, establishing that the alleged consignment of 100 quintals of wheat seed had been misappropriated by the respondents. 7. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 8. Ext. DA, the goods receipt, bears a receipt furnished by the person, who received the consignment of 100 quintals of allegedly misappropriated wheat seed. This receipt is written and signed by respondent Chinta Mani, Secretary of the Society, on behalf of Inspector Brahm Singh, examined as PW-4. The consignment was received on 26.11.1985, as per date written below it. On that date respondent Mast Ram, Sub Inspector, was on tour to Shimla. He remained on tour to different places upto 3.2.1986, as is made out from the entries in the attendance register, copies Ext. DX. 9. Now, when respondent Mast Ram was not even present at Kunihar, where consignment was received on 26.11.1985, and remained away from that station upto 3.2.1986, it cannot be said that it was he who had been entrusted with the allegedly misappropriated consignment of 100 quintals wheat seed. Not only this, the receipt furnished on GR, Ext. DX. 9. Now, when respondent Mast Ram was not even present at Kunihar, where consignment was received on 26.11.1985, and remained away from that station upto 3.2.1986, it cannot be said that it was he who had been entrusted with the allegedly misappropriated consignment of 100 quintals wheat seed. Not only this, the receipt furnished on GR, Ext. DA, very clearly records that the consignment had been received by Chinta Mani, Secretary, for PW-4 Brahm Singh, Inspector. 10. Not only that the consignment was received by respondent Chinta Mani on behalf of PW-4 Brahm Singh, as indicated hereinabove, even FIR Ext. PW2/E, which was recorded on the basis of written report Ext. PW2/G of Agriculture Department, is to the effect that it was PW-4 Brahm Singh, who was responsible for the misappropriation of the consignment, in question. 11. It is also the allegation of the prosecution that respondent Mast Ram, in conspiracy with respondent Chinta Mani, did not enter the consignment in the stock register, Ext. PL. Now, when Mast Ram was not on duty at the depot at Kunihar on the date of receipt of the consignment and also for a period of more than two months thereafter, how can he be held responsible for not entering the consignment in the stock register. 12. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that Bill Ext. PQ, which was submitted to Deputy Director, Solan, for claiming subsidy, is prepared in the hand of respondent Mast Ram and this is a very strong circumstance, connecting him with the misappropriation of wheat seed, in question. It is true that Bill Ext. PQ is written in the hand of respondent Mast Ram, but in fact it is signed by Inspector Mohan Singh Komal, who is stated to be now dead. Amount of subsidy was not received by respondent Mast Ram or even by Inspector Mohan Singh Komal, who signed the bill, but had been deposited directly in the treasury. 13. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submits that when there was entry of only 300 quintals of wheat seed in the stock register, preparation of subsidy bill for four quintals by respondent Mast Ram speaks of his guilt. Submission cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no evidence that the bill was made by consulting the register. It is quite likely that the bill was made on the basis of GR, available in the office. Submission cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no evidence that the bill was made by consulting the register. It is quite likely that the bill was made on the basis of GR, available in the office. In any case, when the bill is signed by one Mohan Singh Komal, Inspector (now dead), presumption should be that respondent Mast Ram scribed it as per his instructions and not after consulting any record. Also, it is not made out from Bill Ext. PQ, if the quantity of wheat seed, in respect of which subsidy was claimed, included the consignment, in question. In fact, endorsement of verification made below the bill is based on the entries dated 5.10.1985, 8.11.1985, 14.11.1985 and 20.11.1985. Consignment, in question, was received on 26.11.1985. The fact suggests that the bill was prepared in respect of those consignments, which had been received upto 20.11.1985. Entries referred to are at Sr. Nos. 1 and 5 to 10. These pertain to the stock received and entered in the register from 5.10.1985 to 20.11.1985. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we find no justification to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.