DES RAJ Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -accused was tried, convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge Anti -corruption Jammu by his judgment dated 25.6.1986 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence Under Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 2006; three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence Under Section 467 RPC and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months imprisonment for the offence Under Section 468 RPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell was that the appellant was the cashier in the office of the Chief Medical Officer Udhampur, Dr. Abdul Samad who was the drawing and disbursing officer. The appellant -accused was alleged to have forged three bills for withdrawal of G.P. Fund advance in the name of Sham Sunder, Girdharilal and himself for Rs. 2018, 1800/ -and 1500/ -respectively. As the advance could be drawn only after sanction of the competent officer on the application of the concerned employee so he also forged three sanction orders dated 6.12.78, 5.1.1979 and 19.1.1979 on the basis of which he prepared treasury vouchers for withdrawal of the said amounts and then without getting the bills cleared from the Accountant Sh. O.P. Nargotra, appended the forged signatures of Dr. Abdul Samad thereon and encashed the same from the treasury and misappropriated the amount of the bills totaling Rs. 5818/ -.Sometime later Sh. Girdharilal detected the withdrawal of Rs. 1800/ - from his G.P. fund account. He made a complaint, EXPWP, to the C.M.O. who reported the matter to the police on 7.8.1981 as per EXPW4 and ultimately FIR No. 38/82 came to be registered against the appellant. Investigation into the FIR culminated into the charge sheet, which was filed before the court of learned Special Judge Anti -corruption after obtaining due sanction of the competent authority Under Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) THERE is sufficient evidence to prove that the accused at the relevant time was cashier in the office of the C.M.O. It has not been denied by the accused. There is ample evidence available on the record that the duty of the accused as cashier was also to prepare bills of the office for withdrawal from the treasury. This also has not been disputed by the appellant. The crucial question for determination is as to who prepared the three bills in issue. The accused has denied the preparation of the same. All the three bills along with sample writings of the accused were sent to the handwriting expert PW Dr. R.L. Dhar who examined and compared the writings. As per his report the three bills in question were found to be in the handwriting of the accused appellant. The evidence of the expert is also found corroboration by the evidence of PWs Mohanlal Bakshi, Dr. Abdul Samad and Dharam chand. Learned trial court has accepted the evidence of the above said witnesses to come to the conclusion that the bills were prepared by the accused. The preparation of bills is not sufficient to constitute the offence unless it is also proved that the signatures of the competent authority who authorized the withdrawal are also forged one. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of Dr. R.L. Dhar who has testified that the same writings of the accused obtained during investigation tallied with the questioned writings on the bills. Reliance was also place on the evidence of Dr. Abdul Samad who has deposed that the signatures on the said bills purported to be his signatures are not his signatures but are forged one. His evidence on this aspect finds support from the evidence of handwriting expert PW Dr. R.L. Dhar who compared his sample signatures with that of the questioned signatures. Learned trial court after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution came to the conclusion that it was the accused alone who was the author of the forged bills and it was he who had forged the signatures of Dr. Abdul Samad, the drawing and disbursing officer. Learned trial court also accepted the evidence of PWs R.D. Gupta and Babu Ram Gupta, the two bank employees and the then Treasury officer for holding that it was the accused who had received the payment from the bank on the basis of the forged bills after the bills being passed from the office of the treasury.