STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. L.D. GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN C.S.TIWANA, J.AND S.S.DEWAN, J., THIS CASE HAS BEEN REFERRED TO ME.THE FACTS OF THE CASE NEED NOT BE RECOUNTED AS THOSE ARE GIVEN IN THE JUDGMENT RECORDED BY S.S.DEWAN, J.

(2.) The charge of conspiracy against the respondents now does not survive as the State has not filed an appeal against their co-accused, who were jointly charged with them for that offence. The charges against L.D. Grover respondent under Section 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and against Krishan Grover under Section 420/109 of the Indian Penal Code. The State now in this case asks for the conviction of these respondents for these charges. The trial Court in para No. 34 of its judgment observed :-

(3.) The prosecution has beyond doubt succeeded in proving that the R/Rs, which were tendered by L.D. Grover respondent at Jullunder Railway Station to take delivery of 22 wagons of coal, were forged, but mere possession of the forged R/Rs with L.D. Grover will not be sufficient to convict him of the offence charged. Before the prosecution asks for the conviction of the person charged with an offence of this nature. It has to show from unimpeachable evidence that it was to his knowledge that the documents were forged. It is only after this that the question of mens rea, which is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence, comes into a play against the accused. There can be direct evidence for forgery of a document, which is not forth coming in this case. There may not be such evidence in support of the fact that the accused had knowledge of the document being forged. The courts have to draw inferences in such cases. The inferences have to be legitimate, reasonable and must flow from evidence on record. Imagination has no part to play in the formulation of such inferences as they are to have a basis in evidence. In the case in hand, I have gone through the evidence and find that the evidence does not furnish any such sound basis from which it may be inferred to register the conviction of L.D. Grover, that he had knowledge that the R/Rs were forged. Mr. Brar argued that L.D. Grover never placed any order for the supply of coal on the firms, which supplied 22 wagons of coal and that he, per his own showing sent only Rs. 30.000/-, as its price, which the price of the coal was much more. According to Shri Brar in the charge-sheet against L.D. Grover the price of coal was mentioned as Rs. 60,000/-. It is a common business practice, and people who are in business knew, that it is not essential that only a person placing the order for goods can have the delivery against the R.R. The persons placing an order for a commodity can sell R.R. to another person and these many a times change many hands before the actual delivery of the goods taken against them. In this manner the fact that L.D. Grover did not place any order for the supply of coal does not show any criminal conduct on his part. He has admitted to have taken delivery of the coal wagons against R.Rs, which, at the trial, were proved forged, being a bonafide purchaser for value. The other limb of the argument that L.D. Grover did not make full payment of the price of the coal too has very meagre support in its favour. There is no evidence on the record as to what actual price of this coal was No effort was made to prove that the price of the coal was Rs. 60,000/- as mentioned in the charge. It was sold by L.D. Grover to P.Ws. 81 to 87 against bills. Even that price does not reach the close vicinity of Rs. 60.000/-. The case set up by L.D. Grover is that he paid Rs. 30.000/- to the suppliers. It is not permissible to enter into realm of conjectures to imagine the black-market price of the coal, when it is nobody's case and no positive evidence has been led as to what type of the coal, it was, its market value or if it was of such a type which was not easily available in the market. The positive case of the prosecution is that the coal was sold to P.W. 81 to P.Ws. 87 against bills. No question thus arises for price the black-market. Shri D.S. Brar, Assistant Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, failed to make out any case on the basis of these documents to reverse the well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial Judge.