STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against an order of discharge recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the petition are these. One Satish Kumar Jain, a partner of M/s. Jain Printer Press, Ambala City, lodged a report at Police Station, Ambala City on 31.3.1975 alleging commission of offences against persons concerned with M/s. Pardeep Enterprises. According to him, the District Relief Fund, Karnal, had invited quotations for printing of tickets, hand-bills, cards etc. for a film star show to be held in Karnal on 17.2.1974 Quotation purporting to be on behalf of M/s. Jain Printing Press was given by someone on the letter head of the press allegedly bearing the signatures of the elder brother of the complainant. The name of the said elder brother was Faquir Chand Jain. As alleged by the complainant, his elder brother's signatures were forged on the quotation. Similarly, another quotation given on behalf of M/s. Sunder Lal Roshan Lal Jain was also forged under the forged signatures of his brother Ashwani Kumar Jain. The concerned officers received only three quotations; two were the allegedly forged ones and genuine one was that of M/s. Pardeep Enterprises and obviously they had been forged in such a manner that M/s. Pardep Enterprises got the contract. The fact that the letter-paids of the respective two firms had been used and the signatures forged thereon were said to be the basis of crime committed under Sections 411, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) AS is evident, there is no direct evidence against the accused. The prosecution case, even if accepted to the extent that M/s. Pardeep Enterprises got the contract and that in the process two forged quotations had been placed before the authorities, by itself would not be enough to conclude that any particular persons had submitted those quotations or that anyone in that regard had been cheated. The mere fact that the letter-head pads of the complainant had been used would not by itself bring the case within the ambit of Section 401, Indian Penal Code, because removal of a letter-head sheet is a trifling matter and nobody would seriously take the possession a recipient of stolen property and the offence worth being tried in a Court of law. The prosecution evidence mainly consists of the report of the Expert which initially was in favour of the respondent but later cast some doubt on the respondent. The science of comparison of handwriting is not perfect. The evidence of the Expert would get weight only if attended to by other circumstances, who here, as said before, there is no direct evidence that the respondent, who undoubtedly is connected as an employe of M/s. Pardeep Enterprises, had personally anything to do with it. Besides, the occurrence took place way back in 1974. Almost fifteen years have elapsed thereafter and the matter has become stale. It is futile now to apply Court time for the purpose. Accordingly, the order of discharge need not be disturbed at this stage even though one may for argument sake opt for view that a prima facie case triable by a Court of law has been established. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.