RAM BALI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision, directed against appellate judgment and order of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, confirming conviction of the revisionists with offence under Section 467 I. P. C. conviction of revisionist Jhaggar Singh with offence under Sec tion 406 and 468 I. P. C. , and further confirming conviction of revisionist Ram Bali with offence under Sections 419 and 428 I. P. C. and sentencing both of them to various terms, was admitted on the point of sentence only. But when I heard the parties and went through the judgments of the trial court and the learned appellate court, necessity for hearing the entire revision on merits arose. Hence the lower court recos d was summoned and parties were heard at length.

(2.) CASE against revisionists relates to the year 1979-80. Offences alleged to have been committed by the revisionists were of Rajgarh Block in District Mirzapur. Undisputedly Jhagger Singh was Lekhpal and due to drought in Mirzapur District during the year 1979-80 he was entrusted with wheat for distribution to weaker sections and disabled villagers. Revisionist Ram Bali resident of Simrabarho, P. S. Karma. Smt. Bhagwantia PW 8 and Heeralal P. W. 9 are also residents of Simrabarho. At the relevant time Smt. Bhag wantia was more than 80 years old. It is borne out from the evidence that the distance between the aforementioned block and village Simrabarho is more than three miles. Then it is borne out from the evidence that both Smt. Bhagwantia and Heeralal held ration cards for receiving wheat in aforesaid drought relief measure. It is admitted by Smt. Bhagwantia that she was unable to carry grain to her house and used to get the grain to her house through Heeralal. There were complaints of irregularity in distribution of grain in drought relief. It is established by evidence adduced in the trial court that on 28. 2. 80 the then Collector of Mirzapur was infront of Rajgarh Block at about 5. 00 p. m. He was returning from his usual tour and was on jeep. He saw revisionist Ram Bali carrying wheat on his cycle. He suspected irregularity in distribution of wheat. Hence he apprehended Ram Bali who at that very time disclosed that he was carrying wheat of two persons of his village. But the said two persons were not present at the spot. Then enquiry was made by the Collector at the place where revisionist Jhaggar was distributing wheat. Distribution Register Ext. I maintained by revisionist Jhaggar showed that the last entries were at Serial No. 161 and 162 and related to Smt. Bhagwanlia and Heeralal, both of whom 15 Kgs. of wheat was shown as issued to each of them on their cards. Both these entries purported to have contained thumb impressions of Smt. Bhagwantia and Heeralal. But these persons were not present at the spot. Collector inferred that the Government wheat was not issued to the concerned persons and was being misappropriated by Lekhpal and his associate after fictitious thumb marks in the register. Collector got the written report scribed and sent the same to the police station.

(3.) IT is evident that gravement of the charges against revisionists was of forgery of thumb impressions of Smt. Bhagwantia and Heeralal in register Ex. 1. There is no evidence that the thumb impressions existing against entries at serial No. 161 and 162 are of Ram Bali. Collector and the two lower courts drew inference against Ram Bali because at the very out set he said that he was carrying wheat of Smt. Bhagwantia and Heeralal both of whom were not present at the spot where Ram Bali was apprehended nor were present at the spot where wheat was being distributed. Explanation offered by Ram Bali was that they had left earlier. The facts that Ram Bali was carrying wheat and that Smt. Bhagwantia and Heeralal were not there could not be sufficient to draw legal inference that Ram Bali was party to the forgery or had put his thumb impressions against entries at Serial No. 161 and 162. On the other hand it appears that the prosecution did not adduce evidence that the thumb impressions against entries at serial No. 161 and 162 are not of Smt. Bhagwantia and Heeralal, Both of them were not shown these entries nor they made any statement with reference to those entries. Then how it can be said that the thumb impressions against the relevant entries are forged. Here vague and general statement that they did not receive wheat and did not put thumb impressions on any register, could not prove that the specific thumb impressions against entries at serial No. 161 and 162 are forged. The way prosecu tion adduced evidence was altogether unsatisfactory and could not discharge the burden lying upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the thumb impressions against entries at serial No. 161 and 162 are forged. Thus, it is evident that the prosecution failed in proving the gravement of the charges against revisionists.