KASHMIR SINGH GULERIA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the appellant, is from the judgment of conviction in Sessions Trial No. 8-Sn of; 1986, decided on 11-11-1986, under Sections 467, 471 of the Indian Penal code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5, sub-section 3-A, of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant has been convicted for offences under these provisions, except Section 467 of the India Penal- Code; and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for three months under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorious Imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5, sub-section 3-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, though all the sentences have been made to run concurrently. The appellant has a grievance against this conviction and sentence, as aforesaid, and therefore, he assails the same by way of this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief is that the accused was working as a Trained Graduate Teacher in Pangna School in District Mandi in the year 1982. In the month of May of the same year, he was shifted from his place and posted as Block Education Officer, Chirgaon. The accused submitted a Transfer T.A. bill for a sum of Rs. 942.65. He claimed through this bill a sum of Rs. 573.75 on account of the charges for carriage to luggage and personal effects besides other claimable dues, as reflected in this bill. In support of his claim qua carriage charges for household luggage and personal effects he submitted a receipt (Ext. PD) dated 12-5-1982 showing that the goods were carried by one Paras Ram, a driver and owner of Truck No, HIL-4727 and, therefore, an amount of Rs. 825/- was paid for the carriage of goods. However as the appellant was entitled to claim only for 30 quintals, therefore, he confined this claim to this extent although according to the receipt amount more than this is indicated to have been paid. This receipt was attested by the accused himself and the bill was submitted for payment. The matter was taken up by the Anti-Corruption Department. Shimla Unit. Shimla. It inquired into the genuineness of the claim of the accused and came to the conclusion that the cause had not carried any luggage from Pangna to Chirgaon at the time of his transfer through truck No. HIL 3727 and had not paid any money on account of the carriage charges to the driver-cum-owner of the truck and the receipt submitted by him with his HA bill was not genuine. A case vide First - Information Report No. 2 of 1983 under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered. During the course of investigation, specimen writings of Paras Ram the owner of the truck, vis-a-vis, the receipt in question, were taken and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents and it was reported, after examination, that the signatures on the receipt did not tally with the standard signatures of Shri Paras Ram who also denied having issued any such receipt or carried any luggage of the accused from Pangna to Chirgaon, as alleged. Specimen writings and signatures of the accused were also take, and examined. There also, it was found that the accused had not written any part of the receipt in question; Log Book of the vehicle was taken into possession. It indicated that no such carriage of goods was there. On inquiries from KalkaShimla Goods Transport Union, on whose pad the receipt in question was prepared, it was found that the accused had neither booked this vehicle for placed any goods at the disposal for carriage. The result of the investigation was that the police initiated the present case against the accused and he was charged for the offences under sections 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5, sub section 3-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused pleaded innocent and claimed to be tried. He examined three witnesses in defence besides his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has come to a definite conclusion that the receipt (Ex. PD), attested by the accused and attached with his T.A. Bill Ex. PA, has not been forged him personally. Taking this view of the matter, the accused has been found not guilty under Section 467. This conclusion, on perusal of the evidence on record of the learned Sessions Judge is right.