Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2101 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Faqir Chand

2011-04-26

R.B.MISRA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 24.11.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan in Cr. Case No. 3/2 of 2000/1999 whereby, respondent, who was charged with and tried for offence under sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that complainant AW-2 Jaswal Singh constructed his new house in the year 1998. He applied for the water connection to I.P.H. Department. He was told that he should first obtain ‘no objection certificate’ from the Municipal Committee. He applied to the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Nahan for ‘no objection certificate’. The application was taken by PW-4 Arvinder Singh to Municipal Committee, Nahan. Accused Faquir Chand, who was posted as Electrician in Municipal Committee, Nahan met him and asked for a sum of Rs. 150/-, which according to him were required to be deposited in the Municipal Committee and thereafter ‘no objection certificate’ was to be issued. PW-4 paid a sum of Rs. 150/- to the accused. Respondent managed to procure the ‘no objection certificate’ Ex.PW-3/A and handed over the same to PW-4 Arvinder Singh. However, subsequently it transpired that the ‘no objection certificate’ Ex.PW-3/A was forged document. Therefore, the Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Nahan reported to the matter to the police vide written complaint Ex.PW-8/A on the basis of which F.I.R. Ex.PW-8/B was registered at Police Station, Nahan. The police investigated the matter and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined number of witnesses to prove the charge against the respondent. He was also examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He pleaded not guilty. The trial court acquitted the respondent on 24.11.2000. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. R.K. Sharma has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent. According to him, learned trial court has not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution. 5. Mr. Karan Singh, has supported the judgment dated 24.11.2000. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Shiv Nath is an official of the Municipal Committee, Nahan. He has produced the record of the Municipal Committee to the police. 8. 5. Mr. Karan Singh, has supported the judgment dated 24.11.2000. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Shiv Nath is an official of the Municipal Committee, Nahan. He has produced the record of the Municipal Committee to the police. 8. PW-2 Jaspal Singh is the complainant, who had applied to the Municipal Committee for issuance of ‘no objection certificate’. According to him, he had sent the application through his son to obtain ‘no objection certificate’. His son obtained the ‘no objection certificate’ from the office of the Municipal Committee by making payment of Rs. 150/-. He produced the same before the I.P.H. Department. He had not directly approached the respondent. 9. PW-3 is Mohinder Singh Patwari. He disclosed the procedure being adopted in the Municipal Committee, Nahan for dealing the application received in Municipal Committee’s office for the issuance of ‘no objection certificate. According to him, ‘no objection certificate’ Ex.PW-3/A was not registered in their office and its dispatch number was fictitious. He has nowhere stated that he was conversant or acquainted with the handwriting of the respondent and that the disputed writing available on the ‘no objection certificate’ Ex.PW-3/A at point Q-1 was that of the respondent. 10. PW-4 is Arvind Singh, who had visited the office of the Municipal Committee, Nahan. According to him, he contacted respondent in Municipal Committee’s office, Nahan. He was asked to arrange Rs. 150/- and thereafter ‘no objection certificate’ was to be issued to him. He paid Rs. 150/- next day to the respondent and obtained ‘no objection certificate’ Ex.PW-3/A. He has not deposed that Ex.PW-3/A was prepared by the respondent under his hand in his presence. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he deposited the application in Municipal Committee’s office, Nahan for issuance of ‘no objection certificate’. He has not disclosed why Rs. 150/- was paid to the respondent. 11. PW-5 Om Parkash is a formal witness. PW-6 Smt. Usha Gupta is an official of the Municipal Committee, Nahan, who has produced the record. 12. According to PW-7 Krishan Kumar, an official of I.P.H. deposed that the witness Jaspal Singh applied for water connection. PW-8 Bansi Lal has written the F.I.R. Ex.PW8/B on the basis of complaint Ex.PW-8/A. 13. PW-10 is Sh. PW-6 Smt. Usha Gupta is an official of the Municipal Committee, Nahan, who has produced the record. 12. According to PW-7 Krishan Kumar, an official of I.P.H. deposed that the witness Jaspal Singh applied for water connection. PW-8 Bansi Lal has written the F.I.R. Ex.PW8/B on the basis of complaint Ex.PW-8/A. 13. PW-10 is Sh. R.K. Jain, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, who has examined the disputed writing of the respondent available at ‘no objection certificate’ Ex.PW-3/A at point Q-1 submitted his report Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-10/B. The handwriting expert has not specifically expressed opinion regarding the signatures available at point Q-2 and Q-3 on ‘no objection certificate’ Ex.PW-3/A. The prosecution has not led any direct evidence to connect the respondent with the alleged commission of offence. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the witnesses were well conversant with the signatures of the respondent. The prosecution has failed to prove that the disputed ‘no objection certificate’ Ex.PW-3/A was forged document and has been forged and fabricated by the respondent. 14. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds of the respondent stand discharged.