STATE OF H.P. Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Magistrate, whereby the respondents, who alongwith deceased Paramjeet Singh, were charged with and tried for offences under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted.

(2.) FIRST , the prosecution version may be noticed. Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as H.R.T.C.) had arranged an auction for grant of licence for Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? collection of adda parking fee, in respect of buses for the period from 1.5.1994 to 30.4.1995, on 30.4.1994. Accused Paramjeet Singh, who has since expired, gave the highest bid and so he was granted the licence. He was supposed to have executed an agreement in favour of the HRTC authorities, which he did execute. The agreement was submitted to the HRTC authorities, who kept the same in their record. The agreement consisted of three sheets of paper. On 10.3.1995, respondent Vijay Kumar, who is a brother of deceased accused Paramjeet Singh, approached respondent Anil Kumar and asked that the said agreement be given to him to enable him to get a photostat copy thereof prepared as the same was required for being shown to the bus operators at the time of collection of the fee. Anil Kumar gave the agreement to him. The same day, after some time, respondent Vijay Kumar returned three typed written paper sheets purporting to be the agreement, earlier taken by him. Anil Kumar kept those papers in record. Two days later, it was noticed by Roshan Lal Jaswal, Senior Assistant (since deceased) that the first two paper sheets of the agreement had been replaced by new paper sheets and the contents thereof were different from the contents of the original paper sheets, inasmuch as in the original sheets the period of licence was recorded as one year from 1.5.1994 to 30.4.1995, while in the replaced sheets the licence was stated to be for indefinite period.

(3.) DURING the investigation, it came to light that there had been a criminal conspiracy among respondent Vijay Kumar, respondent Anil Kumar, who filed complaint Ext.PW17/A, respondent Veerta Verma and deceased Paramjeet Singh, to forge the agreement by replacing its two paper sheets so as to give it a look of licence for collection of adda parking fee in favour of deceased Paramjeet Singh for indefinite period and to achieve the object of that conspiracy, respondent Anil Kumar handed over the original agreement to respondent Vijay Kumar and respondent Veerta Verma attested the two replaced sheets of the agreement and put a back date under her signature. Specimen writings and signatures of respondent Vijay Kumar and Veerta Verma, were obtained in the presence of a Magistrate and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla, for comparison with their purported signatures on the first two sheets of the agreement. The Government Examiner of Questioned Documents opined that the purported signatures of Vijay Kumar and Veerta Verma on the first two sheets of the agreement tallied with their, respective, specimen signatures.