Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Ashok Kumar

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.(Oral)

M/s Indian Oil Corporation has filed this petition against the order dated 1371989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, acquitting Ashok Kumar respondent of the charge for offences under Sections 420, 471, 467, Indian Penal Code, while reversing the judgment of conviction of the trial Court and accepted the appeal.

Brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that Ashok Kumar accused respondent while working as Stenographer in the Indian Oil Corporation during the period from 1271981 to 2681981, dishonestly induced the company to pay a sum of Rs. 336.70 paise on the basis of forged medical bills submitted by him which were purported to have been prepared on, the prescription of Dr. Mrs. Pooja Kundra. The trial Court, believing the evidence of Vijay Singh, Vigilance officer of the Corporation to the effect that no doctor of the description of Dr. Pooja Kundra ever existed, coupled with the contents of the medical reimbursement claims, convicted and sentenced the accused of the above referred charges.

On the appeal filed by Ashok Kumar accused, the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, recorded some additional evidence after allowing the application of the accused in this respect of the basis of additional evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that a person of the name of Pooja Kundra was residing at Faridabad as revealed by the excerpts of the electoral rolls and ration card and acquitted the accused by accepting the appeal.

The main plank of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated 1371989 reveals that he has acquitted the accused first by accepting the appeal and thereafter passed the order allowing additional evidence. It was further submitted that the additional evidence was allowed and recorded on the same day on which the appeal was accepted. He further maintained that the prosecution was not afforded any opportunity by the appellate Court to lead any evidence in rebuttal of the additional evidence. It was also stressed that the plea of bona fide claim was not taken by the accused before the trial Court and the appellate Court has wrongly accepted such plea. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the perusal of the report Exhibit P. 1 made by (P.W.1) Vijay Singh itself shows that a doctor of the abovereferred description was residing at Faridabad, and as a matter of fact he did have a talk with this doctor who was residing with her mother at Agra. It is also maintained that circular letter issued by the Corporation Exhibit D. A. further shows that a doctor of the description of Dr. Pooja Kundra did exist as vide this circular. instructions had been issued to all the Branches not to accept the medical certificates issued by this doctor. It is also maintained that Jagdish Kumar Kundra husband of the doctor, has not only cheated Dr. Mrs. Pooja Kundra but has also resorted to absconding in a case in this regard pending against him vide FIR Exhibit D.W. 3/A.

The scope of revising the order of acquittal in a revision petition is a very limited as the Court can interfere in such like orders only if glaring illegality has been committed by the lower court which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the case in hand although the order dated 13.7.1989 of the appellate Court reveals that the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad has passed the order allowing additional evidence under Section 311 of the Code after accepting the appeal of the accused on that very day, yet all the same, since the accused appellant (presently respondent) has led some evidence in pursuance of that order on that very day, it transpires that the appellate Court has committed an irregularity only in recording and singing the order of allowing additional evidence before the accused was allowed to tendercertain documents and examine witnesses in additional evidence. On the other hand, "keeping in view" that the benefit of every reasonable doubt has to be given to the accused ratherthan to the prosecution, it transpires from the evidence of Vijay Singh P.W.1 who had admitted having made report Exhibit. P. 1 after holding departmental enquiry against Ashok Kumar accused, there is every possibility of Dr. Mrs. Pooja Rundra running a clinic at Faridabad during the relevant period. A stenographer like Ashok Kumar respondent was not expected to verify whether this doctor was duly registered or had done her M B.B S. before getting prescribed from her for the concerned ailment. Thus, under these circumstances, the lower appellate, Court rightly inferred that the accused had a bona fide belief above doctor being competent to treat him and his dependent relation.

The matter does not rest here as the perusal of Exhibit D. A. issued by the Corporation shows that such doctor was prescribing medicine and issuing medical certificates to other employees of the Corporation because that is why it had to issue circular to all its Branches not to release medical reimbursement on the basis of, certificates issued by this doctor. It is altogether a different matter whether Dr. Mrs. Pooja Kundra was qualified or not.

Regarding the grouse of the petitioner that the prosecution was not afford any opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal of the additional evidence allowed by the lower appellate Court it transpires that the public Prosecutor was present when, the additional evidence was produced and had not elected to lead any evidence in rebuttal. The appellate Court was not bound to call upon the prosecution whether it wanted to lead any evidence in rebuttal under these circumstances. Simply because ''in the Voters'' List Exhibits D. Y the parentage of the husband of Dr. Pooja Kundra is different than the one in the Voters'' Lists Exhibit D. X and D Z, it cannot be said that no doctor of the description of Pooja Kundra wife of J. K. Kundra ever existed at Faridabad, because the possibility of Dr. Jagdish Kumar Kundra having presented himself as doctor and cheated the public besides inducing Dr. Pooja Kundra to marry him in view of the factum that a case on such like allegations has been registered against him vide FIR, copy whereof is Exhibit D. W. 3/A, cannot be ruled out. The evidence of D. W. 3 Constable Balbir Singh further shows that Jagdish Kumar Kundra was declared as a proclaimed offender in that case.

Under these circumstances, there being no illegality in the impugned order, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed.

The lower court file be sent back.