Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 855 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Bhim Singh

2011-03-03

KULDIP SINGH, SURJIT SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J. In this appeal, State has sought reversal of judgment dated 25th September, 2002 of learned Special Judge, Solan, whereby respondent Bhim Singh, who was charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 467, 468, 465, 471, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case, which led to the trial of the respondent, may be stated. Respondent was working as Senior Assistant (Accounts) in the Office of Himachal Emporium, The Mall, Solan, during the years 1995 and 1996. Amongst others, his duty was to clear travelling allowance bills of the staff and to disburse the money to the individual claimant staff members. PW-1 Uma Shankar, a Weaving Master, working in the establishment, the respondent was employed in, submitted TA claim, amounting to `3,904/-. TA Claim papers are Ex. PA to Ex. PE. 3. Respondent processed the claim and drew a sum of `3,904/-, from the account of the Emporium, for disbursement to the respondent. Money was shown to have been disbursed to PW-1 Uma Shankar, against voucher Ex. PQ, which is dated 29th February, 1996. Sometime in the year 1996, itself, respondent was transferred from Solan to Kinnaur. PW-1 Uma Shankar made enquiries with the person, who was posted in place of the respondent, with regard to non-payment of his TA claim. He was told that the money, as per account books, already stood paid to him. When Uma Shankar insisted that he had not received the money, he was shown voucher Ex. PQ. He denied his signature on the voucher. 4. Matter was reported to the Manager concerned, who, in turn, made a report to the Managing Director, H.P. State Handicrafts & Handloom Corporation Ltd. The latter directed the former to conduct inquiry. Inquiry was conducted, during the course of which statements of Uma Shankar, Ex. PH and that of the respondent, Ex. PJ, were recorded. Uma Shankar denied having received the payment and having signed voucher Ex. PQ. Respondent stated that voucher Ex.PQ, signed by the claimant, was presented to him and thereafter he filled-in the name and other particulars of the claimant, i.e. PW-1 Uma Shankar, and made the payment, but did not remember the name of the employee to whom payment had been made. PQ. Respondent stated that voucher Ex.PQ, signed by the claimant, was presented to him and thereafter he filled-in the name and other particulars of the claimant, i.e. PW-1 Uma Shankar, and made the payment, but did not remember the name of the employee to whom payment had been made. Report was submitted to the Managing Director by the Manager that Uma Shankar had denied having received the payment or having signed voucher Ex.PQ. 5. Matter was formally reported to the police by the Manager. Police enquired the case and submitted report Ex. PX/9, on the basis of which case was formally registered, vide FIR Ex. PX/10. 6. During the course of investigation, specimen writings and signatures of the respondent as also the specimen signature of PW-1 Uma Shankar were taken. Admitted signatures of Uma Shankar were also collected from the office of the Manager. Specimen and admitted writings and signatures of the respondent and admitted and specimen signatures of Uma Shankar were sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, for comparison with the writing and signature on voucher Ex. PQ. PW-6 Shri M.C. Joshi, Assistant Government of Examiner of Questioned Documents carried out the comparison and found that signature on voucher Ex. PQ, which is marked as Q-2, was different from the specimen and admitted signatures of Uma Shankar and that the body of voucher Ex. PQ tallied with the specimen and admitted handwriting of respondent Bhim Singh. 7. Sanction for prosecution of the respondent was accorded by his Appointing Authority. Report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, on completion of investigation, and submitted to learned Special Judge, who, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and hearing the respondent and the prosecution side, charged the respondent, as aforesaid. 8. Prosecution examined seven witnesses to bring the charge home to the respondent. They are PW-1 Uma Shankar, in whose name voucher Ex. PQ is alleged to have been forged to falsely show the disbursement of TA money to him, PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, who produced the record to the police, during investigation, PW-3 Mangat Ram Chauhan, who was Manager of the Emporium and to whom complaint Ex. PF was submitted by Uma Shankar (PW-1) and who made inquiry and recorded statements Ex. PQ is alleged to have been forged to falsely show the disbursement of TA money to him, PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, who produced the record to the police, during investigation, PW-3 Mangat Ram Chauhan, who was Manager of the Emporium and to whom complaint Ex. PF was submitted by Uma Shankar (PW-1) and who made inquiry and recorded statements Ex. PH of Uma Shankar and PJ of the respondent, PW-4 Shri Deepak Bhagai, Managing Director, who accorded sanction to prosecute the respondent, PW-5 Hari Chand, who investigated the case, PW-6 Shri M.C. Joshi, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, who compared the questioned signatures/writings with the standard signatures/writings of the respondent and PW-1 Uma Shankar, as Handwriting Expert, and PW-7 Avinash Chander Dani, before whom the specimen handwriting and signatures of the respondent and those of PW-1 Uma Shankar were taken. 9. Respondent took the plea that money had been disbursed against voucher Ex. PQ, by Dhani Ram Sharma and Ram Phal, who were Clerk and Part-time worker, respectively, who used to assist him and that it was one of those persons, who obtained signature of the payee on the voucher. He, however, admitted having written the name and other particulars of the payee on voucher Ex. PQ and having signed it. 10. Learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent, with the reasoning that there is no evidence on the record, suggesting that the purported signature of PW-1 Uma Shankar, on voucher Ex. PQ, is forged by the respondent and in the absence of definite evidence, to this effect, this remains only case of strong suspicion and on the basis of suspicion, howsoever strong, conviction cannot be based. 11. We are constrained to say that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is absolutely incorrect. Normally, a person, forging vouchers to suppress acts of misconduct of criminal misappropriation of Government money, would not himself forge the signature of the payee. Legal position is that once it is shown that the signature of the payee, on the voucher, is forged, it is for the person, who has prepared the voucher and made payment against that voucher, to show that he is not involved in the act of forgery and is also not responsible for the misappropriation of money, mentioned in the voucher. 12. In the present case, as already noticed, respondent does not deny that voucher Ex. 12. In the present case, as already noticed, respondent does not deny that voucher Ex. PQ is written in his hand. PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, who had been working as Accountant in the Emporium at Solan, at the time when he stepped into the witness box, very categorically stated that voucher Ex. PQ was in the hand of the respondent. Testimony of PW-6, Handwriting Expert, also proves the fact. In his statement Ex.PJ, which the respondent made, during the course of inquiry by the Manager, it was categorically admitted that the body of the voucher was written by him, in his own hand. Respondent, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that he had made the payment to the complainant (PW-1 Uma Shankar), through Dhani Ram Sharma and Ram Phal, who were Accounts Clerk and Part-time worker, respectively. 13. Respondent’s plea that he made the payment to PW-1 Uma Shankar through Dhani Ram Sharma, Clerk and Ram Phal, Part-time worker, is false, on the face of it. While making statement Ex. PJ to the Manager, namely PW-3 Mangat Ram Chauhan, he stated that he did not remember the name of the employee to whom the money had been disbursed, though he did say that he disbursed the money only when voucher Ex. PQ, signed by the payee, was submitted to him. Also, it was not suggested to the witnesses of the prosecution, including PW-1 Uma Shankar that the money had been paid through Dhani Ram Sharma, Clerk or Ram Phal, Part-time worker. 14. Respondent examined a witness, by the name of Dhani Ram, an employee of the Emporium at Solan. The witness is not a Clerk but a Peon. The witness did not say that the money was disbursed to PW-1 Uma Shankar, through him. What he stated is that PW-1 Uma Shankar used to collect the money, due to him, on account of TA & DA, even in the absence of the respondent. Testimony of the witness, thus, in no way, advances the defence plea. 15. Uma Shankar, in his deposition as PW-1, very categorically stated that neither he had been paid the money, mentioned in voucher Ex. PQ, nor was the said voucher signed by him. His testimony that the voucher is not signed by him is corroborated by the testimony of PW-6 Shri M.C. Joshi, Handwriting Expert. 15. Uma Shankar, in his deposition as PW-1, very categorically stated that neither he had been paid the money, mentioned in voucher Ex. PQ, nor was the said voucher signed by him. His testimony that the voucher is not signed by him is corroborated by the testimony of PW-6 Shri M.C. Joshi, Handwriting Expert. Therefore, there should be no reason to disbelieve the same. 16. Respondent has not been able to satisfactorily explain that the money had been disbursed by him. As already noticed, in his statement Ex. PJ to PW-3 Mangat Ram Chauhan, during the course of Departmental Inquiry, he stated that he did not know the name of the employee to whom the money had been paid. In his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he stated that money had been paid by him through Dhani Ram, Clerk and Ram Phal, Part-time worker, but this plea was raised, for the first time, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was not suggested to any of the witnesses of the prosecution. Also, neither Dhani Ram, the Clerk nor Ram Phal, the Part-time worker, was examined to prove the plea. 17. In view of the above discussed evidence, we are of the considered view that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to the proved factual aspect as also the legal aspect of the matter and, therefore, unsustainable. The same is, therefore, set aside. Respondent is convicted of offences, under Sections 409, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He be produced in person, for being heard on the question of quantum of sentence, on 31st March, 2011. Non-bailable warrant of arrest, returnable for the aforesaid date, be issued against the respondent, forthwith.