STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JEET MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has come-up in appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Jodhpur dated September 24, 1974, by which accused Jeetmal was acquitted of the offences under sections 467 and 471. I. P. C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that accused Jeetmal was employed as a peon in the Workshop of the Public Works Department, Jodhpur. Anonymous complaint levelling various charges of embezzlement and forging certificate was received against him in the Office of the Crime Investigation Depart-ment (C. B. I.), Rajasthan, Jaipur. A decision was taken to make a preliminary enquiry and Sub-Inspector Karanraj (PW 5) was entrusted with this job. He made an inquiry and submitted report Ex, P. 7 to the Additional Superintendent of Police. It was thereafter received at Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur on October 12, 1971. The police registered a case under sections 480, 468 and 471, I. P. C. against the accused. It transpired during investigation that the accused submitted application forms EX. P. 2 and EX. P. 3 to the Principal, Industrial Training Institution, Jodhpur. Alongwith these applications, he annexed EX. P. 1 the attested copy of his academic qualification. EX P. 1 shows that he had studied upto class VIII in Government Middle School, Mathaniya district Jodhpur. In application forms Ex. P. 2 and Ex. P. 3 (column No. 6) he showed his qualification as having passed the VIII standard from Government Middle School, Mathaniya. The attested copy EX. P. 1 is a forged document, so also the entries in column No. 6 of EX P. 2 and EX, P. 3 are false. He had never studied in Government Middle School, Mathaniya, nor passed the VIII standard from there. The accused, thus, forged the attested copy of the certificate Ex. P. 1 and used it as genuine' knowing it to be a false and forged document. The police, after investigation, submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate (1) Jodhpur, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge. Jodhpur. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Jodhpur, who framed charges under sec. 467 and 471, IPC against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence taken by the accused was that he did not submit the attested copy EX P. 1 of the certificate alongwith application forms EX P. 2 and EX. P. 3 to the Principal, I. T. I , Jodhpur He further denied that in column No. 6 of EX. P. 2 and EX. P. 3, the entries were made by him or were made at his instance. He further pleaded that on November 15, 1968 when EX. P. 2 and EX. P. 3 are said to have been submitted in the I. T. I. Office, he was not at Jodhpur but was at some other place. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined four witnesses. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges against the accused. He held that the disputed entries C to D in column No. 6 of application forms EX. P. 2 and EX. P. 3 were not in the handwriting of the accused, nor were they written at his instance or were in his knowledge. He further held that the attested copy EX. P. 1 of the certificate was not submi-tted by the accused alongwith the application forms EX. P. 2 and EX P. 3 Taking this view, he held the charges not proved and acquitted the accused. The grievance of the State is that the accused was wrongly acquitted of the offences he was charged with.

(3.) ESJS Dydz us ESJS lkeus ,d ld'k dk ,d lfvzfqdsv is'k fd;k Fkk --------------- esus vly ns[kk Fkka ;g threy dk Fkka esus vly ls Compare fd;k Fkka** Thus, in Ex. D1, he did not state that the accused had accompanied his clerk who had come with Ex. P. 1 and its original. This is an important contradiction and omission which cannot be lightly ignored from consideration. This omission and contradiction go in the very root of the testimony of this witness Gangadhar (PW 3 ). When he was asked to explain the aforesaid contradiction and omission occurring in his statement EX. D 1, he could not furnish any satisfactory explanation except that by one person in EX. D l he meant the accused Jeetmal Unfortunately, again, in EX. D 1 he had not stated that there was any other person alongwith his clerk when the latter came in his office to have the attestation of EX. P. 1. The learned Judge was, therefore, justified in concluding that accused Jeetmal did not accompany the clerk and never went to PW 3 Gangadhar when Gangadhar attested EX P. 1 to be a true copy of the original. This finding of the learned Sessions Judge is not tainted and calls for no correction.