RAJU PAUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 34(2) of 2004.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution story is that a complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 Shri Sushil Ch. Shom. The gist of the complaint was that in the first part of December, 2001, the petitioner Raju Paul approached the complainant for being given a job as a driver. While praying for a job, the petitioner had shown the photocopy of his driving licence to the complainant. According to the complainant, he on the basis of the said photocopy of driving licence engaged the petitioner as a driver, but asked him to produce the original driving licence. The petitioner promised the complainant that he would produce the original driving licence, but on pretext of the other he did not produce the same. When for more than 15 days the original licence was not produced, the complainant became suspicious and went to the Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner and found out that the driving licence No. 14371, photocopy of which had been shown to him by the petitioner was not in fact issued in his name, but the driving licence of this number had been issued in favour of one Santosh Das on 30th November, 1981. Thereafter, the complainant along with his son went to the police station and lodged a complaint at the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered and the case was filed. Both the courts below have found the accused guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this petition.

(3.) P .W. 1 is the complainant. He has fully supported the prosecution case and has stated that he employed the petitioner after the petitioner told him that he had a valid driving licence. When the complainant asked the petitioner to produce the original licence, he first stated that the same was lying with his father, who had gone to Bangladesh. According to the complainant, he asked the petitioner again and again to produce the original licence, but when he failed to do so for more than a fortnight, he went to the Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner along with the petitioner and when the photocopy of the driving licence was shown, it was found that no such licence exists in favour of the petitioner. He also states that after the complaint was lodged, the photocopy of the driving licence was recovered from the driver. P.W. 2 is the son of the complainant and has also fully supported the prosecution case. P.W. 4 is the Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare, who was posted as Assistant Transport Commissioner on 25.03.2002. Her statement is quite evasive and does not help any party. P.W. 5, who at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Transport Commissioner has clearly stated that driving licence bearing serial No. 14371 was issued on 30th November, 1981 in favour of one Santosh Das. He has also stated that no such licence was issued in the name of Raju Paul. The evidence of P.W. 6, the investigating officer is only relevant for the purpose of proving the recovery of the licence.