State of H.P. vs Jai Dev

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 26.6.1999 delivered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(II), Shimla, in Crl. Case No. 53/2 of 1998/95, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

The undisputed facts are that the accused was working as In-charge of the Post Office at Jubberhatti, Tehsil & Distt. Shimla. One Ishwar Singh had opened a Saving Account and a Recurring Deposit Account in the said Police Office vide Account Nos. 712303 & 703732, respectively. According to the prosecution Ishwar Singh died on 28.5.1991. However, despite death of Ishwar Singh the accused person misused his position of In-charge of Post Office, forged the signatures of Ishwar Singh and withdrew a sum of Rs. 1599.55 paise on 19.7.1993 from Account No. 703732 and a sum of Rs. 3570.70 paise on 26.6.1993 from Account No. 712303. The prosecution case is that this fact came to the knowledge of the department only when one Devi Dass, Mail Overseer inspected the record of the Post Office. Thereafter, Devi Dass submitted his report Ext.PW-1/A and on the basis of this, the Superintendent of Police, Shimla filed complaint Ext.PW-1/B. On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R. Ext.PW-8/A was registered against the accused. The matter was investigated and after investigation the accused was challaned and was charged with having committed the aforesaid offences.

In a case of this nature it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have proved the following facts;

(i) that the signatures on the disputed withdrawal forms Ext.PW-3/A and Ext.PW-3/B were not those of Ishwar Singh;

(ii) that it was the accused who had forged the signatures of Ishwar Singh;

(iii) that in case forgeries were not proved then also the prosecution could have proved its case by proving that the accused knew that Ishwar Singh was dead.

None of these facts have been proved.

According to PW-11 he had taken the accused before the Tehsildar and had asked the accused to give his specimen signature which he refused to do. In this behalf reliance is placed on the certificate of the Tehsildar who had alleged that this certificate is meaningless. The prosecution did not produce the Tehsildar to prove the same. Even otherwise assuming that accused Jai Dev had refused to give his specimen signature in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sukhvinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, the Investigating Officer could not have compelled the accused to give his specimen signature and the only course available for the prosecution was to have approached the trial Court during the trial of the case u/s 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, who could have then asked and directed the accused to give his specimen signature. This procedure admittedly has not been followed. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused forged the signatures of deceased Ishwar Singh.

In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged.