Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2412 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. DHARAM PAL

2016-11-15

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. Respondent/accused was charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Case of the prosecution was that on 12.03.2004, complaint Ex. PW3/A was received by Superintendent of Police from Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HP PWD Una, Shri O.P. Sharma that the office of the complainant had received a notice from Manager, UCO Bank Thathal, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh conveying that the Bank had disbursed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as loan to the accused, who was serving as an Additional Assistant Engineer in the said office, though the office had not given any recommendation/undertaking to the Bank for advancement of loan and that the accused had forged the signatures of the complainant on the relevant loan documents. On the basis of this complaint, FIR Ex. PW9/A was lodged. Investigation was carried out and challan was filed in the Court. As a prima facie case was found against the accused, he was accordingly charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2. Learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 22.11.2013 convicted the accused for committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 1000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial Court held that there was nothing to show that the accused had applied to Executive Engineer, DDO for the salary certificate or to obtain his signatures on the documents and it appeared that accused himself had moved the application to fill up the lacunas or save himself. It further held that there was no material to demonstrate that the documents were directly received by the Bank from Executive Engineer and this proved that the accused had forged the signatures of Executive Engineer on documents Ex. PW2/B, Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW1/B by dishonest intention to get loan from the Bank and accused had thereby fraudulently and dishonestly induced the Bank on the basis of the said documents to deliver him loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- and had succeeded in getting the same. It further held that accused had dishonestly made false documents by forging the signatures of Executive Engineer, HP PWD, Electrical Sub Division Una, Om Parkash with intent to obtain loan from UCO Bank and had committed fraud on the Bank as well as the Executive Engineer. It was on the basis of findings so returned by the learned trial Court that it convicted the accused. 3. In appeal, the finding of conviction returned against the accused by the learned trial Court was set aside by the learned appellate Court. Learned appellate Court held that there was no evidence to show that there was any culpable intention of the accused right from the beginning. It further held that prosecution had not led any evidence to prove that signatures on salary certificate and no objection certificate were in the hand of the accused nor did the prosecution send any specimen of handwriting either of accused or complainant to Handwriting Expert to prove that the signatures were forged. It further held that prosecution had not led any evidence to prove that signatures on salary certificate and no objection certificate were in the hand of the accused nor did the prosecution send any specimen of handwriting either of accused or complainant to Handwriting Expert to prove that the signatures were forged. Learned appellate Court also held that evidence suggested that two Class-1 officers, who were at loggerheads were searching for some chance to settle score with each other and the complainant got that opportunity by moving an application to Superintendent of Police, Una, who without application of mind forwarded the same to SHO, Police Station Una for registration of case. It further held that the loan taken by the accused was his personal loan and in absence of any evidence regarding the forged signatures, learned trial Court wrongly concluded that the accused dishonestly made false documents by forging the signatures of complainant, Om Parkash, Executive Engineer. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment so passed by the learned appellate Court, the State has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. 6. The genesis of the case of the prosecution is the factum of the complaint having been received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Una from PW-3, Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HP PWD, Una, Om Parkash to the effect that a notice had been received from Manager, UCO Bank, Thathal, Tehsil Amb, District Una that Bank had disbursed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as loan to the complainant, which was based on forged signatures made on DDO's stamp on Annexures appended with the complaint as office had not given any recommendation/undertaking to the Bank. 7. Incidentally, a perusal of material produced on record by the prosecution demonstrates that no notice was ever sent by the Bank to the Executive Engineer to the effect that an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- had been disbursed to the accused, which was based on forged signatures made on any document. The communications addressed by the Bank to the Executive Engineer, which are on record as Ex. PW2/I and Ex. PW2/J dated 10.02.2004 and 11.03.2004, respectively are intimations that loan for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- had been disbursed to the accused, which was based on forged signatures made on any document. The communications addressed by the Bank to the Executive Engineer, which are on record as Ex. PW2/I and Ex. PW2/J dated 10.02.2004 and 11.03.2004, respectively are intimations that loan for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- had been disbursed to the accused and further vide communication dated 11.03.2004 Ex. PW2/J, Executive Engineer was informed that the borrower had repaid the entire amount on 11.03.2004 and no amount was due against him to the Bank. 8. Complaint Ex. PW3/A is dated 10.03.2004. The document on which the accused had allegedly forged the signatures of the Executive Engineer are on record Ex. PW1/B (Salary Certificate), Ex. 2/B (Irrevocable letter of authority from the employee) and Ex. PW2/C (Deduction Letter). It is not the case of the prosecution nor was it mentioned in the complaint that the salary certificate of the accused was incorrect or the amounts which were mentioned in the same were not in harmony with the salary which was being received by the accused at the relevant time. Further, it is not the case of the Bank also as there is no material produced on record to this effect by the prosecution that it had filed any complaint against the accused that the accused had obtained loan from the Bank by cheating the Bank by submitting forged documents. On the other hand, letter written to the complainant by the Manager of the Bank dated 11.03.2004 (Ex. PW2/J) demonstrates that in fact no loss had been caused to the Bank as the entire amount disbursed to the accused on 10.02.2004 was repaid by the accused on 11.03.2004. 9. Further, to make out a case of forgery, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have had proved that the alleged forged signatures on the documents were either of the accused or were not of the complainant, however, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the same. The documents which contained the alleged forged signatures were never sent by the prosecution to the Handwriting Expert. No cogent and justifiable explanation has come forth from the appellant/State as to why these documents were not sent to Handwriting Expert along with admitted signatures of the complainant as well as the accused. The documents which contained the alleged forged signatures were never sent by the prosecution to the Handwriting Expert. No cogent and justifiable explanation has come forth from the appellant/State as to why these documents were not sent to Handwriting Expert along with admitted signatures of the complainant as well as the accused. Besides this, it stands established on record from the documents produced by the prosecution that the loan papers of the accused in fact were received by the Bank through proper channel. Both PW-1 Karam Chand, who was serving as Junior Assistant in the concerned Electrical Division and Sutli Kumar, who was serving as Manager in UCO Bank, Thathal Branch in the year 2004, have stated that the documents were sent and received through proper channel. In these circumstances, when the prosecution had failed to establish that alleged forged signatures on the documents were not of the complainant but were of either accused or any other person, learned appellate Court has rightly held that no offence was made out against the accused for having committed the offence for which he was convicted by the learned trial Court. It is also a matter of record that there was enmity between the complainant and the accused. 10. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court demonstrates that it is mentioned therein in para-22 of the same that the learned trial Court compared the questioned signatures of Executive Engineer with the admitted signatures of Executive Engineer and thereafter formulated the opinion that the questioned signatures and admitted signatures had not been put by the same person. It was on these bases that the learned trials Court come to the conclusion that it appeared that the questioned signatures of Executive Engineer were forged. 11. In our considered view, it cannot be said that no opinion in this regard could have been formed by the learned trial Court, but the better recourse would have had been for the prosecution to have had sent the relevant documents to the Handwriting Expert. Even otherwise, it is settled law that opinion of a Handwriting Expert is only a corroborative piece of evidence and it cannot be made bases for convicting the accused. Even otherwise, it is settled law that opinion of a Handwriting Expert is only a corroborative piece of evidence and it cannot be made bases for convicting the accused. In the present case, the surrounding circumstances also do not establish and prove that the accused had committed any offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had forged the signatures of the complainant either himself or through some other person on the document. 12. Therefore, while concurring with the findings of acquittal returned by the learned appellate Court, we dismiss this appeal being devoid of any merit.