Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 833 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surjan Singh

2012-11-15

DEEPAK GUPTA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
Judgment Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 27.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin in case No. 777/1 of 2004/96 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that accused Gian Chand was posted as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Rohin from 1990 to 1991. Accused Surjan Singh was the President of the said Panchayat. According to the prosecution both the accused hatched conspiracy to misappropriate the Government funds. They misused the old muster-rolls/bills issued by the Panchayat, destroyed the old record and forged a false register after destruction of the original record. According to the prosecution though the Auditor inspected the cash book on 1.4.1991 and found discrepancies but the two accused incorporated false and forged entries in the cash book inspite of the note of the Panchayat Inspector. 3. The crux of the prosecution story is that the accused made false entries in the muster rolls and the same persons were shown to be working at different places at the same time. 4. It would be pertinent to mention that the complaint in this behalf was lodged by PW-6 Bohra Ram sometime in the year 1994. After the complaint was lodged the police investigated the matter and various documents were taken into possession and the accused were charged with having committed the offences aforesaid. At this stage, it would also be pertinent to mention that initially the challan was filed only against Surjan Singh. Later accused Gian Chand was also impleaded as an accused. 5. The accused have not denied that they were working as Secretary and Pradhan of the Panchayat. They have also admitted that they executed certain works in Gram Panchayat, Rohin as per the muster-rolls seized by the police but have denied that any excess payment was made to any person. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses. The learned trial Court after going through the evidence has acquitted the accused. 6. We have heard Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Sh. Sharwan Dogra and Sh. N.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. PW-6 Bohra Ram, who is the complainant, has claimed that the attendance of certain labourers was marked twice on the same day for two places and payment was made. 6. We have heard Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Sh. Sharwan Dogra and Sh. N.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. PW-6 Bohra Ram, who is the complainant, has claimed that the attendance of certain labourers was marked twice on the same day for two places and payment was made. If this allegation is correct then the respondents would have to explain how the same persons shown to have been working at two different places on the same day. However, other than making a bald assertion in this regard Bohra Ram has not mentioned the names of the work or of the workmen who are shown to have been present at two places. Most of the witnesses, such as, PW-1 Subash Chand, PW-8 Mahant Ram, PW-9 Prakash Chand, PW-20 Ram Prakash, who were the labourers have all stated that they have only received the amount for the work actually done by them and they have not received any payment for the work at which they were not present. Some of the witnesses did not support the prosecution but no effort was made to declare them hostile and their version was accepted by the State. Even with regard to construction of the path and other works PW2 Shankar Ram has turned hostile. PW-7 Krishanu Ram, who supplied the stones for construction of Dore Wali Bowri, has clearly stated that he had received the money for the amount of stones supplied by him. Similarly, PW-11 Sunder Ram, who had supplied the sand, has given a similar statement. They have also not supported the prosecution. Most of the witnesses turned hostile and the oral evidence does not support the prosecution. 8. Coming to the documentary evidence, the muster rolls, which have been produced on record are Ext.P-7, Ext.P-8, Ext.P-9, Ext.P-14, Ext.P-15, Ext.P-16 and Ext.PW-23/A. Ext.P-7 is the muster-roll for construction of the road and relates to the period December, 1990. Ext.P-8 is the muster-roll for August, 1990. Ext.P-9 is the muster-roll from 1.9.1990 to 7.9.1990. Ext.P-14 is the muster-roll from 21.5.1990 to 20.6.1990 but the entries are only from 26.5.1990 to 3.6.1990. Ext.P-15 is the muster roll from 9.8.1991 to 26.8.1991. Ext.P-16 is the muster roll from 21.8.1990 to 20.9.1990. Ext.PW-23/A is the muster roll from 20.3.1991 to 29.3.1991. Ext.P-8 is the muster-roll for August, 1990. Ext.P-9 is the muster-roll from 1.9.1990 to 7.9.1990. Ext.P-14 is the muster-roll from 21.5.1990 to 20.6.1990 but the entries are only from 26.5.1990 to 3.6.1990. Ext.P-15 is the muster roll from 9.8.1991 to 26.8.1991. Ext.P-16 is the muster roll from 21.8.1990 to 20.9.1990. Ext.PW-23/A is the muster roll from 20.3.1991 to 29.3.1991. These muster-rolls all relates to different period and even if the name of workman is entered in more than one places it does not in any way show that the person has been shown to be present twice at one place. 9. With regard to supply of material, as pointed out above, the witnesses have not supported the prosecution. It is also in evidence that there used to be Panchayat Committees which were to oversee the payment. The prosecution has failed to prove who were the members of the Panchayat Committees who were to supervise the works and oversee the payment. 10. The learned trial Court after going through the entire evidence has come to the finding of fact which cannot be said to be perverse or not based on any material evidence. The accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. The prosecution has failed to point out any specific evidence to show that the accused have committed any offence. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged.