State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Ram Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
prevention of corruption act, 1947 - sections 5(1)(c) and 5(2)--where an educated person failed to famish a convincing explanationn as to why she kept on signing consistantly without the salary being paid, or why on recovery of forgery--she did not lodge a complaint for 8 months and kept on signing, particularly when the salary was dispursed in presence of principal and cashier, and she alleged the forgery only when the principal initiated an enquiry against her because certain material under her charge was missing, then it is justified to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. - - naima saeed complained to the director of education that her salary from april to june, 1973 has not been paid even though the principal of the school has obtained her signature on the acquaintance rolls in the presence of the teachers and the other staff of the school. on the basis of this documentary evidence, the 1.0. completed the investigation and submitted the challan, against the accused for having committed an offence under section 409/468/471/420 of the indian penal code as well as under section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(c) of the prevention of corruption act. (9) on the basis of this evidence, learned lower court concluded :in this process, it is clearly established in the first instance, the allegations of mrs. the two versions are irreconcilable and clearly knocks the bottom of the prosecution case. saeed being an educated person has failed to furnish a convincing explanationn as to why she should keep on signing consistently without the salary being paid. (11) in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned special judge was justified in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts to the effect that the accused forged the signature of miss saced. (12) it is otherwise well settled that in an appeal against an order of acquittal, the appellate court will be slow to disturb the finding of the court below.m.k. chawla, j.(1) in the year 1973, smt. naima saeed was posted as a senior domestic teacher in the government girls higher secondary school, bulbuli khana, asaf ali road, delhi. during the relevant period, smt. n.d. chaudhary was the principal of the school while ram singh, the respondent in this court was working as an upper division clerk (cashier). (2) on 28-5-1974. smt. naima saeed complained to the director of education that her salary from april to june, 1973 has not been paid even though the principal of the school has obtained her signature on the acquaintance rolls in the presence of the teachers and the other staff of the school. on the basis of this complaint, smt. savitri keshav who was working as the vigilance officer in the directorate of education as asked to enquire about the said complaint and submit her report. after making thorough enquiry, smt. savitri submitted her report (public witness -2/d), confirming the fact that the salary to the complainant ha not been paid. on the basil of the said report, a formal complaint (public witness -1/a) was lodged before the superintendent of police, anti-corruption branch by sh. r.k. bhatia, joint director of education. the investigation was entrusted to shri krishan gopal, the assistant commissioner of police who moved in the matter took into possession the relevant documents, including the audit report and examined a, number of witnesses. his investigation revealed that the accused who has working as a cashier of the school did not disburse various amounts to miss naima saeed and embezzled the same by forging her signatures in the acquaintance rolls showing that the amount has been duly disbursed. (3) ramsingb, concerned metropolitan magistrate for obtaining his specimen writing and signatures for comparison with his disputed writings. the handwriting expert on examination of these documents opined that the writer of the disputed and admitted signatures is the same. on the basis of this documentary evidence, the 1.0. completed the investigation and submitted the challan, against the accused for having committed an offence under section 409/468/471/420 of the indian penal code as well as under section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(c) of the prevention of corruption act. (4) in support of this case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses while the accused produced six persons in his defense. in bids statement under section 313 cr. p.c. the accused denied that he used to make entries in the acquaintance rolls and obtained signatures of the staff on the revenue stamps before making the payment of their salaries. according to him, it was the principal who used to obtain the signatures of the members of the staff on the acquaintance rolls. his further case is that the accounts. used to be maintained by shri srivastava, head clerk and shri hardayal who used to write the cash book and the ledger. in fact, he was not working as a cashier but was only designated as such because of the circular of the directorate of education, be being the seniormost clerk in the school. the defense witnesses supported the stand of the accused in oil its material particulars. (5) on careful examination of the oral and documentary evidence proved on record, the special judge concluded that the prosecution has- not been able to prove the charge and thus acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of doubt. it is against this judgment dated 27-9-1979 that the state has filed the present appeal. (6) shri k.k.bakshi, learned counsel for the state in a half-hearted manner referred to and relied upon the statements of only two witnesses smt. savitri keshav,pw-2 and smt. naima saeed,pw-ll, the complainant to substantiate the charge of defalcation and embezzlement of various amounts of salary after forging the signature of the complainant. reference was also made to the testimony of the handwriting expert shri m.k.jain (pw-4). (7) we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and with his help gone through the evidence of the relevant witnesses. smt. savitri keshav has proved her report ex. pw-2/d when cross-examined, she admitted that when she had gone to the school to hold an enquiry, the acquaintance rolls, cash book and the ledger were produced by the principal from the almirah of which she had the key with her. however, she could not say if the convention for disbursement of salary in the school was that all the teachers would assemble in the room of the principal, collect their salaries and sign the register there and then. (8) miss naima saeed deposed that firstly ram singh and the principal would prepare the bills and the accused used to make entries in the acquaintance rolls, obtain their signature on the revenue stamps before making the payment. the money was disbursed by the accused and the principal jointly. she, however, denied her signature on the various entries in the acquaintance rolls against which the payment was not was not made according to her, she always signed while writing with spelling 'saeed' and never used the word 'y' while cross-examined, the witness admitted that before signing (public witness -11/b), she had not made any other complaint to higher specifically asked that in her complaint she had stated the month of march, april and june, 1973, have not been paid, had mentioned these months on the basis of her estimate. she admitted that smt. chaudhary the principal had initiated an enqure her because certain material which was under her charge was missing he school. (9) on the basis of this evidence, learned lower court concluded : 'in this process, it is clearly established in the first instance, the allegations of mrs. saeed, pw, were that in fact her signatures had been obtained in the acquaintance roll and salary for the. month of march. april and june, 1973 has not been paid there is a complete shift in the stand and the prosecution case is contrary to what was alleged by the complainant in the first instance. as already referred to above and repeated at the risk of repetition is that the prosecution is coming to the court now with the allegations that signatures are forged. the two versions are irreconcilable and clearly knocks the bottom of the prosecution case.'(10) the court below was further of the opinion that mrs. saeed being an educated person has failed to furnish a convincing explanationn as to why she should keep on signing consistently without the salary being paid. even if the salary was not being paid, or her signatures were forged, mrs. saeed would not wait for more than 8 months to lodge the complaint. further more it is the case of the complainant herself that the salary used to be disbursed by the accused and the principal jointly, to all the teachers present in the room of the principal. the defense witnesses have confirmed the adoption of this,procedure of disbursement of salaries and as such there was no occasion for the accused to obtain the signatures and not to pay the salary to any member of the staff. the story put forth by miss saeed hai not been substantiated by any other member of the staff. in fact, the employee of the school even though named in the complaint of miss saeed have not been examined. (11) in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned special judge was justified in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts to the effect that the accused forged the signature of miss saced. cheated her or used those forged signatures to collect the amount. we confirm this finding as, in our opinion, this is the only possible view which can be taken on the facts and circumstances of this case. (12) it is otherwise well settled that in an appeal against an order of acquittal, the appellate court will be slow to disturb the finding of the court below. even if the court would take a different view on the evidence, that is no ground for reversing the order of acquittal. (13) in our considered opinion, the judgment under appeal is not perverse, manifestly unreasonable, illegal or grossly unjust. the view taken by the trial court was reasonably possible and once this is so, there can be no question of reversing the order of acquittal. (14) in the result, we dismiss the appeal. the accused is on bail. his bail bound is discharged.