Smt. Shakuntla Vats. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Decided On : Jan-06-2009

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 120-B',
			(int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 13(2',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 120-B',
			(int) 4 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 82',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 299',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 313 Cr',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 120-B',
			(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 13(2',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 313 Cr',
			(int) 12 => 'the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 13(2'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Surinder Singh',
			(int) 1 => 'Sita Ram Vats',
			(int) 2 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 3 => 'Tehsil Kotkhai',
			(int) 4 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 5 => 'Sita Ram Vats',
			(int) 6 => 'Kisan Vikas Patras',
			(int) 7 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 8 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 9 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 10 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 11 => 'Shakuntla',
			(int) 12 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 13 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 14 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 15 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 16 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 17 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 18 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 19 => 'Nos',
			(int) 20 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 21 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 22 => 'Ram Swarup Sharma',
			(int) 23 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 24 => 'Kisan Vikas Patras',
			(int) 25 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 26 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 27 => 'Sita Ram Parmar',
			(int) 28 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 29 => 'Ram Swarup Sharma',
			(int) 30 => 'Lal Sharma',
			(int) 31 => 'Ex',
			(int) 32 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 33 => 'Shakuntla Vats',
			(int) 34 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 35 => 'PW34 K.L.Punani',
			(int) 36 => 'Shakuntla',
			(int) 37 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 38 => 'Shri S.K. Chawla',
			(int) 39 => 'Exts',
			(int) 40 => 'Mohinder Singh',
			(int) 41 => 'H.S. Chopra',
			(int) 42 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 43 => 'Ex',
			(int) 44 => 'Patras Ex'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sub-Post Master',
			(int) 1 => 'Sub Post',
			(int) 2 => 'H.P.',
			(int) 3 => 'the Prevention of Corruption',
			(int) 4 => 'Sub-Post Office',
			(int) 5 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 6 => 'Social Security Certificates',
			(int) 7 => 'Sub Post Master',
			(int) 8 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 9 => 'Vikas Patras',
			(int) 10 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 11 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 12 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 13 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 14 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 15 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 16 => 'the Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 17 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 18 => 'Post',
			(int) 19 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 20 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 21 => 'Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh and Report',
			(int) 22 => 'the Central Bureau of Investigation',
			(int) 23 => 'Shimla',
			(int) 24 => 'Bank',
			(int) 25 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents',
			(int) 26 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 27 => 'the State Bank',
			(int) 28 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 29 => 'Court',
			(int) 30 => 'the Government Examiner',
			(int) 31 => 'the Questioned Documents',
			(int) 32 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 33 => 'Indira Vikas Patra Nos',
			(int) 34 => 'National Saving',
			(int) 35 => 'State Bank of India',
			(int) 36 => 'Postal',
			(int) 37 => 'H.P.',
			(int) 38 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 39 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 40 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 41 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 42 => 'NSC',
			(int) 43 => 'Social Security Certificates',
			(int) 44 => 'SSC',
			(int) 45 => 'Post',
			(int) 46 => 'Invoice No',
			(int) 47 => 'Kisan Vikas Patra Ex',
			(int) 48 => 'PW1/D11',
			(int) 49 => 'Court',
			(int) 50 => 'Sections',
			(int) 51 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act.10',
			(int) 52 => 'Post Office',
			(int) 53 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 54 => 'National Saving Certificates and',
			(int) 55 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 56 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 57 => 'Post Offices',
			(int) 58 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 59 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 60 => 'Indira Vikas Patras Ex',
			(int) 61 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 62 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 63 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 64 => 'Shri H.R. Dhingra',
			(int) 65 => 'Indira Vikas Patra Nos',
			(int) 66 => 'Sub Post',
			(int) 67 => 'National Saving Certificate',
			(int) 68 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 69 => 'H.S. Chopra',
			(int) 70 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 71 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Document',
			(int) 72 => 'the Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 73 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 74 => 'Exts',
			(int) 75 => 'the Documents Expert',
			(int) 76 => 'H.S. Chopra',
			(int) 77 => 'The Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 78 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 79 => 'Sub-Post Master',
			(int) 80 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 81 => 'Learned Counsel'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'District Shimla',
			(int) 1 => 'Jaipur',
			(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 3 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 5 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 6 => 'Tehsil',
			(int) 7 => 'Kotkhai',
			(int) 8 => 'Ex',
			(int) 9 => 'Kiari w.e.f.1.5.1991',
			(int) 10 => 'Bikaner',
			(int) 11 => 'Jaipur'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1986 to 1990',
			(int) 1 => 'one year',
			(int) 2 => '450950',
			(int) 3 => '450995',
			(int) 4 => '136323',
			(int) 5 => '871988',
			(int) 6 => 'the year 1991',
			(int) 7 => '1986',
			(int) 8 => '4.10.1989',
			(int) 9 => 'page-81',
			(int) 10 => '9.10.1989',
			(int) 11 => '19.10.1990',
			(int) 12 => '15.6.1993',
			(int) 13 => '14th August, 1990',
			(int) 14 => '493869',
			(int) 15 => '14.8.1990',
			(int) 16 => '136323',
			(int) 17 => '871988',
			(int) 18 => '19.6.1987',
			(int) 19 => 'about 5/6 days',
			(int) 20 => 'about 15 years back'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one',
			(int) 1 => '23,79,950/-',
			(int) 2 => '30,000/-',
			(int) 3 => '19,500/-',
			(int) 4 => '5/1991',
			(int) 5 => '23,79,950/-',
			(int) 6 => '468',
			(int) 7 => '471',
			(int) 8 => '420',
			(int) 9 => '5.1.1998',
			(int) 10 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 11 => '991',
			(int) 12 => 'One',
			(int) 13 => '4/1',
			(int) 14 => '3/1',
			(int) 15 => '120',
			(int) 16 => '25',
			(int) 17 => '5',
			(int) 18 => '51',
			(int) 19 => '14',
			(int) 20 => '25.11.1986',
			(int) 21 => '19,500/-',
			(int) 22 => '30,000/-',
			(int) 23 => '991',
			(int) 24 => '10',
			(int) 25 => '10',
			(int) 26 => '5',
			(int) 27 => '51.14',
			(int) 28 => 'one'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shri P.R. Kumar'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891021',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Conspiracy - Modification of Sentence - Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Sections 120-B and 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Present appeal filed against order of conviction for offence punishable under Section 13(2) of Act and Section 120-B of IPC - Whether appellant was rightly convicted, for hatching conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust, punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Act? - Held, as per proved facts, Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates were issued in name of Appellant and its sale consideration has never been reflected in the official records - Later on, these securities were pledged with bank to secure loan applied for by appellant - This fact is sufficient to hold that Appellant had conspired with her husband the then Sub-Post Master, and fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated government securities i.e. National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras - Judgment of Special Judge is not perversed rather it is based on sound reasoning derived from evidence on record, which requires no interference - However, it was also brought to notice that Appellant remained in custody for about 5/6 days and she has deposited fine amount, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in matter - Keeping in view mitigating and extenuating circumstances and also fact that offence was committed about 15 years back, ends of justice would be met in case appellant is sentenced to period already undergone and to pay a fine amount, as imposed by Trial Court - Thus, sentence part stands modified accordingly - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-01-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Surinder Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Surinder Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellant is the wife of the absconding accused Sita Ram Vats. He remained posted as Sub-Post Master in Sub Post office Kiari, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. w.e.f. 1986 to 1990. The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In brief, the prosecution story goes like this. Sub-Post Office, Kiari was a one man office, where Sita Ram Vats aforesaid was working as a sub-Post Master. A large number of National Saving Certificates, Kisan Vikas Patras, Indira Vikas Patras and Social Security Certificates, valuing lacks of rupees were entrusted to him in his capacity as a Sub Post Master, Kiari to sell them to the intending purchasers. He is alleged to have sold securities worth Rs. 23,79,950/-, but he misappropriated the same and did not account for it. It was further alleged that some of the National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras were not shown having been sold in the name of his minor children and his wife the appellant. The appellant and her husband hatched a conspiracy to misappropriate some of the securities and to cheat some bank and in execution of the illegal designs, her husband Sita Ram issued Indira Vikas Patras worth Rs. 1,15,000/- and National Saving Certificates worth Rs. 30,000/- in the name of his wife, the appellant and raised a loan to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- against the security of Indira Vikas Patras and Rs. 19,500/- against the security of National Saving Certificates from the State Bank of India, Kiari branch. Neither the appellant nor her husband had made the payments of Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates aforesaid nor her husband in the capacity of sub-Post Master, had shown its sale to her in the books maintained in the sub-post office. When the Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates matured on its maturity date, these securities were presented by the bank to the head Post Officer at Shimla to collect its maturity value as neither the appellant nor her husband repaid the loan amount, but the postal authorities did not release the maturity value, on the ground that it was never purchased by the appellant, nor its entry was in the official records. Then the State Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of the amount against the postal authorities, which was decreed with interest to the tune of Rs. 3,67,365/-. The Director, postal authorities lodged an inquiry and during the inquiry, it was found that Sita Ram and Shakuntla both were involved in the aforesaid scant. The matter was sent to the S.P., Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh and Report No. 5/1991 CHG was registered. During the investigation of this case, the Central Bureau of Investigation took into possession the entire records of the securities maintained in the sub-post office Kiari and also in the head post office at Shimla. The specimen signatures of the appellant were taken by the Investigating Officer before the Bank Manager at Jaipur where she was residing and sent for its examination to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents alongwith disputed National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras, alleged to have been pledged with the State Bank. On the conclusion of the investigation, it was found that the appellant and her husband Sita Ram both were involved in the case and Sita Ram had misappropriated Rs. 23,79,950/- out of the sale proceeds of the various securities entrusted to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The challan was presented against the appellant and Sita Ram aforesaid under Section 120-B, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Sita Ram had absconded, therefore, proceedings against him were initiated under Section 82 Cr.P.C., but he did not turn up, as such, the charge was framed against the appellant under the aforesaid sections and Sita Ram was declared as proclaimed offender. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Before examining the prosecution witnesses, the learned Special Judge, vide order dated 5.1.1998 allowed the prosecution to lead evidence and the statement as recorded in the case against the appellant were directed to be treated as evidence against the proclaimed offender as per the provision of Section 299 Cr.P.C. The prosecution produced its witnesses to prove the charges. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. She denied the circumstances, which were found attendant upon her, however, she raised the defence that she is illiterate, she cannot sign her name. She only puts thumb impression and she did not know anything about the case, however, she did not lead any evidence in defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. At the end of the trial, the appellant was convicted for hatching the conspiracy with her husband and sentenced for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which has been assailed in this appeal, on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not believed and the learned trial court wrongly drew the adverse inference against her. Further that no handwriting or specimen signatures were obtained before the independent person/ Officer and the report of the Government Examiner of the Questioned Documents is wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the evidence on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated above, Sita Ram was the sole person handling the sub-post office at Kiari in Tehsil Kotkhai and the appellant is his wife, who is alleged to have obtained Indira Vikas Patra Nos. 450950 to 450995 valuing Rs. 1,15,000/- and National Saving certificate Nos. 136323 and 871988 to 991, valuing Rs. 30,000/-. Said certificates were not shown in the register maintained for the said purpose by her husband Sita Ram and these were used to take loan by the appellant in her name from them State Bank of India, Kiari branch by pledging the above valuable securities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. PW1 Ram Swarup Sharma, Assistant Superintendent of Post Officer was associated by Shri P.R. Kumar, Director, Postal authorities, H.P. in the inquiry of the fraud committed by the absconded accused Sita Ram during the year 1991 as the said accused was alleged to have committed the fraud in the National Saving Certificates, Kisan Vikas Patras and Indira Vikas Patras while working as sub-Post master, Kiari during his posting w.e.f. 1986 to December, 1990. According to him, Indira Vikas Patras (IVP), National Saving Certificates (NSC) and Social Security Certificates (SSC) were supplied to the sub-post office on the basis of the invoice in duplicate. On the receipt of the invoice with the certificates, the certificates mentioned above are entered in the stock register maintained by the sub-Post Master. One copy of the invoice had returned to the head office after acknowledging the certificates receipts. In the sub Post office Kiari, Sita Ram Parmar was the sole custodian of the sale proceeds. He was entrusted with the aforesaid documents/securities, which was received by him vide Invoice No. 4/1 dated 4.10.1989 (Ex.PW1/A), which were entered into the stock register Ex.PW1/B at page-81 against his signature, said Sita Ram had also received Kisan Vikas Patra Ex.PW1/C vide invoice dated 9.10.1989. The invoice No. 3/1 dated 19.10.1990, had also received by him vide invoice Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D11, which were entered in the invoice register Ex.PW1/D12.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Basically the question before this Court is whether the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned Special Judge, for hatching the conspiracy to commit the criminal breach of trust, punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. PW1 Ram Swarup Sharma, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Shimla deposed that Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates and Social Security Certificates were entrusted to the husband of the appellant for its sale. He has been able to prove that Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates were entered in Ex.PW20/D-20 in the invoice register Ex.PW1/D12 and entries Ex.PW1/D-24 and 25 in the stock register Ex.PW1/B were proved by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. PW37 Rattan Lal Sharma, Superintendent of Post Offices has proved Ex.PW37/A-1 to 5, the copies of the National Saving Certificates. According to him, the payment of the amount due on these certificates was paid to the State Bank of India, Kiari branch as these certificates were pledged with the said bank as security for the repayment of the loan to the appellant Shakuntla Vats. He also proved the copies of Indira Vikas Patras Ex.PW37/A-6 to 51. Its payment was also made to the State Bank of India, Kiari branch by the department to satisfy the decree passed by the Civil Court, in favour of the bank. The said certificates were honoured by the postal authorities, but were not genuine because these were shown to have been issued without consideration in favour of the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Now it is relevant and important to discuss the statement of PW34 K.L.Punani, who remained posted as Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Kiari w.e.f.1.5.1991 to 15.6.1993. According to him, the appellant applied for a loan to the tune of Rs. 92,000/- on 14th August, 1990, which was sanctioned by the then Manager, Shri H.R. Dhingra, whose signatures were identified by him. He also proved the loan application Ex.PW34/A and further stated that the loan secured by Shakuntla against the security of Indira Vikas Patra Nos. 450950 to 450995 (14 in numbers) issued on 25.11.1986 amounting to Rs. 1,15,000/- were issued by the Sub Post office, Kiari. Out of the sanctioned loan amount, the appellant had withdrawn Rs. 70,000/- through cheque No. 493869 dated 14.8.1990. This cheque book was issued by their branch to the appellant. He further stated that the appellant had also raised the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 19,500/- against the security of National Saving Certificate amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and these National Saving Certificates bore Nos. 136323 and 871988 to 991 and this loan was sanctioned on 19.6.1987 by Shri S.K. Chawla, the then Manager. The loan amount was not repaid by the appellant. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the bank account of the appellant was opened and the loan was sanctioned in her favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The civil suit filed by the State Bank of India was decreed as aforesaid which was not further assailed. To connect the appellant for raising the loan against the aforesaid securities, her specimen signatures were obtained by the Investigating Officer PW35 H.S. Chopra on Exts.PW35/X-1 to 10, in the presence of Shri V.K.Sharma, Manager of the State Bank of India, Bikaner, Jaipur and Alwar, which fact was not challenged in his cross-examination by the appellant, which were sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Document, for comparison with the signatures of the loan application Exts.PW34/A and marked Ex.PW43/C. As per the report of PW38 Mohinder Singh, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, the signatures on the application aforesaid and also on the reverse side of the Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates did tally with the specimen signatures on Exts.PW35/X-1 to 10, which were alleged to have been taken by the Investigating Officer PW35 H.S. Chopra. The testimony of the Documents Expert has not been assailed in his cross- examination, so it stands proved that the specimen signatures of the appellant obtained by PW35 H.S. Chopra were, of the same person who signed the application form, and is none else than the appellant. The Indira Vikas Patras and the National Saving Certificates aforesaid were issued in the name of the appellant and its sale consideration has never been reflected in the official records, these securities were pledged with the bank to secure the loan applied for by the appellant. This fact is sufficient to hold that the appellant had conspired with her husband Sita Ram the then Sub-Post Master, thus fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated the government securities Ex.PW37/A-1 to 5 the National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras Ex.PW36/A-6 to 51.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. On examination of the evidence on record, I do not find that the judgment of the conviction passed by the learned Special Judge is perverse rather it is based on the sound reasoning derived from the evidence on record, which requires no interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed on the appellant is quite harsh, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that her husband had absconded and virtually deserted her. She has her children to maintain and support. She being a rustic lady was totally dependant upon her husband and in the alleged offence; her husband has a dominant role to use her for his own ulterior motive. It was also brought to the notice that the appellant remained in the custody for about 5/6 days and she has deposited the fine amount, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. I have considered the above submissions in the light of the above circumstances. Keeping in view the mitigating and extenuating circumstances and also the fact that offence was committed about 15 years back, the ends of justice would be met in case the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone and to pay a fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial court. Thus, the sentence part stands modified accordingly. The fine amount, if not deposited, be deposited within a period one month.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Send down the records.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891021'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 120-B',
		(int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 13(2',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 120-B',
		(int) 4 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 82',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 299',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 313 Cr',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 120-B',
		(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 13(2',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 313 Cr',
		(int) 12 => 'the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 13(2'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Surinder Singh',
		(int) 1 => 'Sita Ram Vats',
		(int) 2 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 3 => 'Tehsil Kotkhai',
		(int) 4 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 5 => 'Sita Ram Vats',
		(int) 6 => 'Kisan Vikas Patras',
		(int) 7 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 8 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 9 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 10 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 11 => 'Shakuntla',
		(int) 12 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 13 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 14 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 15 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 16 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 17 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 18 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 19 => 'Nos',
		(int) 20 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 21 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 22 => 'Ram Swarup Sharma',
		(int) 23 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 24 => 'Kisan Vikas Patras',
		(int) 25 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 26 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 27 => 'Sita Ram Parmar',
		(int) 28 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 29 => 'Ram Swarup Sharma',
		(int) 30 => 'Lal Sharma',
		(int) 31 => 'Ex',
		(int) 32 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 33 => 'Shakuntla Vats',
		(int) 34 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 35 => 'PW34 K.L.Punani',
		(int) 36 => 'Shakuntla',
		(int) 37 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 38 => 'Shri S.K. Chawla',
		(int) 39 => 'Exts',
		(int) 40 => 'Mohinder Singh',
		(int) 41 => 'H.S. Chopra',
		(int) 42 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 43 => 'Ex',
		(int) 44 => 'Patras Ex'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sub-Post Master',
		(int) 1 => 'Sub Post',
		(int) 2 => 'H.P.',
		(int) 3 => 'the Prevention of Corruption',
		(int) 4 => 'Sub-Post Office',
		(int) 5 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 6 => 'Social Security Certificates',
		(int) 7 => 'Sub Post Master',
		(int) 8 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 9 => 'Vikas Patras',
		(int) 10 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 11 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 12 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 13 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 14 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 15 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 16 => 'the Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 17 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 18 => 'Post',
		(int) 19 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 20 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 21 => 'Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh and Report',
		(int) 22 => 'the Central Bureau of Investigation',
		(int) 23 => 'Shimla',
		(int) 24 => 'Bank',
		(int) 25 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents',
		(int) 26 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 27 => 'the State Bank',
		(int) 28 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 29 => 'Court',
		(int) 30 => 'the Government Examiner',
		(int) 31 => 'the Questioned Documents',
		(int) 32 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 33 => 'Indira Vikas Patra Nos',
		(int) 34 => 'National Saving',
		(int) 35 => 'State Bank of India',
		(int) 36 => 'Postal',
		(int) 37 => 'H.P.',
		(int) 38 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 39 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 40 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 41 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 42 => 'NSC',
		(int) 43 => 'Social Security Certificates',
		(int) 44 => 'SSC',
		(int) 45 => 'Post',
		(int) 46 => 'Invoice No',
		(int) 47 => 'Kisan Vikas Patra Ex',
		(int) 48 => 'PW1/D11',
		(int) 49 => 'Court',
		(int) 50 => 'Sections',
		(int) 51 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act.10',
		(int) 52 => 'Post Office',
		(int) 53 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 54 => 'National Saving Certificates and',
		(int) 55 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 56 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 57 => 'Post Offices',
		(int) 58 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 59 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 60 => 'Indira Vikas Patras Ex',
		(int) 61 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 62 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 63 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 64 => 'Shri H.R. Dhingra',
		(int) 65 => 'Indira Vikas Patra Nos',
		(int) 66 => 'Sub Post',
		(int) 67 => 'National Saving Certificate',
		(int) 68 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 69 => 'H.S. Chopra',
		(int) 70 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 71 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Document',
		(int) 72 => 'the Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 73 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 74 => 'Exts',
		(int) 75 => 'the Documents Expert',
		(int) 76 => 'H.S. Chopra',
		(int) 77 => 'The Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 78 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 79 => 'Sub-Post Master',
		(int) 80 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 81 => 'Learned Counsel'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'District Shimla',
		(int) 1 => 'Jaipur',
		(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 3 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 5 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 6 => 'Tehsil',
		(int) 7 => 'Kotkhai',
		(int) 8 => 'Ex',
		(int) 9 => 'Kiari w.e.f.1.5.1991',
		(int) 10 => 'Bikaner',
		(int) 11 => 'Jaipur'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1986 to 1990',
		(int) 1 => 'one year',
		(int) 2 => '450950',
		(int) 3 => '450995',
		(int) 4 => '136323',
		(int) 5 => '871988',
		(int) 6 => 'the year 1991',
		(int) 7 => '1986',
		(int) 8 => '4.10.1989',
		(int) 9 => 'page-81',
		(int) 10 => '9.10.1989',
		(int) 11 => '19.10.1990',
		(int) 12 => '15.6.1993',
		(int) 13 => '14th August, 1990',
		(int) 14 => '493869',
		(int) 15 => '14.8.1990',
		(int) 16 => '136323',
		(int) 17 => '871988',
		(int) 18 => '19.6.1987',
		(int) 19 => 'about 5/6 days',
		(int) 20 => 'about 15 years back'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one',
		(int) 1 => '23,79,950/-',
		(int) 2 => '30,000/-',
		(int) 3 => '19,500/-',
		(int) 4 => '5/1991',
		(int) 5 => '23,79,950/-',
		(int) 6 => '468',
		(int) 7 => '471',
		(int) 8 => '420',
		(int) 9 => '5.1.1998',
		(int) 10 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 11 => '991',
		(int) 12 => 'One',
		(int) 13 => '4/1',
		(int) 14 => '3/1',
		(int) 15 => '120',
		(int) 16 => '25',
		(int) 17 => '5',
		(int) 18 => '51',
		(int) 19 => '14',
		(int) 20 => '25.11.1986',
		(int) 21 => '19,500/-',
		(int) 22 => '30,000/-',
		(int) 23 => '991',
		(int) 24 => '10',
		(int) 25 => '10',
		(int) 26 => '5',
		(int) 27 => '51.14',
		(int) 28 => 'one'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shri P.R. Kumar'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891021',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Conspiracy - Modification of Sentence - Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Sections 120-B and 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Present appeal filed against order of conviction for offence punishable under Section 13(2) of Act and Section 120-B of IPC - Whether appellant was rightly convicted, for hatching conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust, punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Act? - Held, as per proved facts, Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates were issued in name of Appellant and its sale consideration has never been reflected in the official records - Later on, these securities were pledged with bank to secure loan applied for by appellant - This fact is sufficient to hold that Appellant had conspired with her husband the then Sub-Post Master, and fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated government securities i.e. National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras - Judgment of Special Judge is not perversed rather it is based on sound reasoning derived from evidence on record, which requires no interference - However, it was also brought to notice that Appellant remained in custody for about 5/6 days and she has deposited fine amount, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in matter - Keeping in view mitigating and extenuating circumstances and also fact that offence was committed about 15 years back, ends of justice would be met in case appellant is sentenced to period already undergone and to pay a fine amount, as imposed by Trial Court - Thus, sentence part stands modified accordingly - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-01-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Surinder Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Surinder Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellant is the wife of the absconding accused Sita Ram Vats. He remained posted as Sub-Post Master in Sub Post office Kiari, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. w.e.f. 1986 to 1990. The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In brief, the prosecution story goes like this. Sub-Post Office, Kiari was a one man office, where Sita Ram Vats aforesaid was working as a sub-Post Master. A large number of National Saving Certificates, Kisan Vikas Patras, Indira Vikas Patras and Social Security Certificates, valuing lacks of rupees were entrusted to him in his capacity as a Sub Post Master, Kiari to sell them to the intending purchasers. He is alleged to have sold securities worth Rs. 23,79,950/-, but he misappropriated the same and did not account for it. It was further alleged that some of the National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras were not shown having been sold in the name of his minor children and his wife the appellant. The appellant and her husband hatched a conspiracy to misappropriate some of the securities and to cheat some bank and in execution of the illegal designs, her husband Sita Ram issued Indira Vikas Patras worth Rs. 1,15,000/- and National Saving Certificates worth Rs. 30,000/- in the name of his wife, the appellant and raised a loan to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- against the security of Indira Vikas Patras and Rs. 19,500/- against the security of National Saving Certificates from the State Bank of India, Kiari branch. Neither the appellant nor her husband had made the payments of Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates aforesaid nor her husband in the capacity of sub-Post Master, had shown its sale to her in the books maintained in the sub-post office. When the Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates matured on its maturity date, these securities were presented by the bank to the head Post Officer at Shimla to collect its maturity value as neither the appellant nor her husband repaid the loan amount, but the postal authorities did not release the maturity value, on the ground that it was never purchased by the appellant, nor its entry was in the official records. Then the State Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of the amount against the postal authorities, which was decreed with interest to the tune of Rs. 3,67,365/-. The Director, postal authorities lodged an inquiry and during the inquiry, it was found that Sita Ram and Shakuntla both were involved in the aforesaid scant. The matter was sent to the S.P., Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh and Report No. 5/1991 CHG was registered. During the investigation of this case, the Central Bureau of Investigation took into possession the entire records of the securities maintained in the sub-post office Kiari and also in the head post office at Shimla. The specimen signatures of the appellant were taken by the Investigating Officer before the Bank Manager at Jaipur where she was residing and sent for its examination to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents alongwith disputed National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras, alleged to have been pledged with the State Bank. On the conclusion of the investigation, it was found that the appellant and her husband Sita Ram both were involved in the case and Sita Ram had misappropriated Rs. 23,79,950/- out of the sale proceeds of the various securities entrusted to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The challan was presented against the appellant and Sita Ram aforesaid under Section 120-B, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Sita Ram had absconded, therefore, proceedings against him were initiated under Section 82 Cr.P.C., but he did not turn up, as such, the charge was framed against the appellant under the aforesaid sections and Sita Ram was declared as proclaimed offender. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Before examining the prosecution witnesses, the learned Special Judge, vide order dated 5.1.1998 allowed the prosecution to lead evidence and the statement as recorded in the case against the appellant were directed to be treated as evidence against the proclaimed offender as per the provision of Section 299 Cr.P.C. The prosecution produced its witnesses to prove the charges. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. She denied the circumstances, which were found attendant upon her, however, she raised the defence that she is illiterate, she cannot sign her name. She only puts thumb impression and she did not know anything about the case, however, she did not lead any evidence in defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. At the end of the trial, the appellant was convicted for hatching the conspiracy with her husband and sentenced for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which has been assailed in this appeal, on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not believed and the learned trial court wrongly drew the adverse inference against her. Further that no handwriting or specimen signatures were obtained before the independent person/ Officer and the report of the Government Examiner of the Questioned Documents is wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the evidence on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated above, Sita Ram was the sole person handling the sub-post office at Kiari in Tehsil Kotkhai and the appellant is his wife, who is alleged to have obtained Indira Vikas Patra Nos. 450950 to 450995 valuing Rs. 1,15,000/- and National Saving certificate Nos. 136323 and 871988 to 991, valuing Rs. 30,000/-. Said certificates were not shown in the register maintained for the said purpose by her husband Sita Ram and these were used to take loan by the appellant in her name from them State Bank of India, Kiari branch by pledging the above valuable securities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. PW1 Ram Swarup Sharma, Assistant Superintendent of Post Officer was associated by Shri P.R. Kumar, Director, Postal authorities, H.P. in the inquiry of the fraud committed by the absconded accused Sita Ram during the year 1991 as the said accused was alleged to have committed the fraud in the National Saving Certificates, Kisan Vikas Patras and Indira Vikas Patras while working as sub-Post master, Kiari during his posting w.e.f. 1986 to December, 1990. According to him, Indira Vikas Patras (IVP), National Saving Certificates (NSC) and Social Security Certificates (SSC) were supplied to the sub-post office on the basis of the invoice in duplicate. On the receipt of the invoice with the certificates, the certificates mentioned above are entered in the stock register maintained by the sub-Post Master. One copy of the invoice had returned to the head office after acknowledging the certificates receipts. In the sub Post office Kiari, Sita Ram Parmar was the sole custodian of the sale proceeds. He was entrusted with the aforesaid documents/securities, which was received by him vide Invoice No. 4/1 dated 4.10.1989 (Ex.PW1/A), which were entered into the stock register Ex.PW1/B at page-81 against his signature, said Sita Ram had also received Kisan Vikas Patra Ex.PW1/C vide invoice dated 9.10.1989. The invoice No. 3/1 dated 19.10.1990, had also received by him vide invoice Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D11, which were entered in the invoice register Ex.PW1/D12.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Basically the question before this Court is whether the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned Special Judge, for hatching the conspiracy to commit the criminal breach of trust, punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. PW1 Ram Swarup Sharma, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Shimla deposed that Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates and Social Security Certificates were entrusted to the husband of the appellant for its sale. He has been able to prove that Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates were entered in Ex.PW20/D-20 in the invoice register Ex.PW1/D12 and entries Ex.PW1/D-24 and 25 in the stock register Ex.PW1/B were proved by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. PW37 Rattan Lal Sharma, Superintendent of Post Offices has proved Ex.PW37/A-1 to 5, the copies of the National Saving Certificates. According to him, the payment of the amount due on these certificates was paid to the State Bank of India, Kiari branch as these certificates were pledged with the said bank as security for the repayment of the loan to the appellant Shakuntla Vats. He also proved the copies of Indira Vikas Patras Ex.PW37/A-6 to 51. Its payment was also made to the State Bank of India, Kiari branch by the department to satisfy the decree passed by the Civil Court, in favour of the bank. The said certificates were honoured by the postal authorities, but were not genuine because these were shown to have been issued without consideration in favour of the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Now it is relevant and important to discuss the statement of PW34 K.L.Punani, who remained posted as Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Kiari w.e.f.1.5.1991 to 15.6.1993. According to him, the appellant applied for a loan to the tune of Rs. 92,000/- on 14th August, 1990, which was sanctioned by the then Manager, Shri H.R. Dhingra, whose signatures were identified by him. He also proved the loan application Ex.PW34/A and further stated that the loan secured by Shakuntla against the security of Indira Vikas Patra Nos. 450950 to 450995 (14 in numbers) issued on 25.11.1986 amounting to Rs. 1,15,000/- were issued by the Sub Post office, Kiari. Out of the sanctioned loan amount, the appellant had withdrawn Rs. 70,000/- through cheque No. 493869 dated 14.8.1990. This cheque book was issued by their branch to the appellant. He further stated that the appellant had also raised the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 19,500/- against the security of National Saving Certificate amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and these National Saving Certificates bore Nos. 136323 and 871988 to 991 and this loan was sanctioned on 19.6.1987 by Shri S.K. Chawla, the then Manager. The loan amount was not repaid by the appellant. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the bank account of the appellant was opened and the loan was sanctioned in her favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The civil suit filed by the State Bank of India was decreed as aforesaid which was not further assailed. To connect the appellant for raising the loan against the aforesaid securities, her specimen signatures were obtained by the Investigating Officer PW35 H.S. Chopra on Exts.PW35/X-1 to 10, in the presence of Shri V.K.Sharma, Manager of the State Bank of India, Bikaner, Jaipur and Alwar, which fact was not challenged in his cross-examination by the appellant, which were sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Document, for comparison with the signatures of the loan application Exts.PW34/A and marked Ex.PW43/C. As per the report of PW38 Mohinder Singh, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, the signatures on the application aforesaid and also on the reverse side of the Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates did tally with the specimen signatures on Exts.PW35/X-1 to 10, which were alleged to have been taken by the Investigating Officer PW35 H.S. Chopra. The testimony of the Documents Expert has not been assailed in his cross- examination, so it stands proved that the specimen signatures of the appellant obtained by PW35 H.S. Chopra were, of the same person who signed the application form, and is none else than the appellant. The Indira Vikas Patras and the National Saving Certificates aforesaid were issued in the name of the appellant and its sale consideration has never been reflected in the official records, these securities were pledged with the bank to secure the loan applied for by the appellant. This fact is sufficient to hold that the appellant had conspired with her husband Sita Ram the then Sub-Post Master, thus fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated the government securities Ex.PW37/A-1 to 5 the National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras Ex.PW36/A-6 to 51.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. On examination of the evidence on record, I do not find that the judgment of the conviction passed by the learned Special Judge is perverse rather it is based on the sound reasoning derived from the evidence on record, which requires no interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed on the appellant is quite harsh, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that her husband had absconded and virtually deserted her. She has her children to maintain and support. She being a rustic lady was totally dependant upon her husband and in the alleged offence; her husband has a dominant role to use her for his own ulterior motive. It was also brought to the notice that the appellant remained in the custody for about 5/6 days and she has deposited the fine amount, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. I have considered the above submissions in the light of the above circumstances. Keeping in view the mitigating and extenuating circumstances and also the fact that offence was committed about 15 years back, the ends of justice would be met in case the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone and to pay a fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial court. Thus, the sentence part stands modified accordingly. The fine amount, if not deposited, be deposited within a period one month.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Send down the records.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891021'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 120-B',
			(int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 13(2',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 120-B',
			(int) 4 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 82',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 299',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 313 Cr',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 120-B',
			(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 13(2',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 313 Cr',
			(int) 12 => 'the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 13(2'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Surinder Singh',
			(int) 1 => 'Sita Ram Vats',
			(int) 2 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 3 => 'Tehsil Kotkhai',
			(int) 4 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 5 => 'Sita Ram Vats',
			(int) 6 => 'Kisan Vikas Patras',
			(int) 7 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 8 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 9 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 10 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 11 => 'Shakuntla',
			(int) 12 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 13 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 14 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 15 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 16 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 17 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 18 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 19 => 'Nos',
			(int) 20 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 21 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 22 => 'Ram Swarup Sharma',
			(int) 23 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 24 => 'Kisan Vikas Patras',
			(int) 25 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 26 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 27 => 'Sita Ram Parmar',
			(int) 28 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 29 => 'Ram Swarup Sharma',
			(int) 30 => 'Lal Sharma',
			(int) 31 => 'Ex',
			(int) 32 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 33 => 'Shakuntla Vats',
			(int) 34 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 35 => 'PW34 K.L.Punani',
			(int) 36 => 'Shakuntla',
			(int) 37 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 38 => 'Shri S.K. Chawla',
			(int) 39 => 'Exts',
			(int) 40 => 'Mohinder Singh',
			(int) 41 => 'H.S. Chopra',
			(int) 42 => 'Sita Ram',
			(int) 43 => 'Ex',
			(int) 44 => 'Patras Ex'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sub-Post Master',
			(int) 1 => 'Sub Post',
			(int) 2 => 'H.P.',
			(int) 3 => 'the Prevention of Corruption',
			(int) 4 => 'Sub-Post Office',
			(int) 5 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 6 => 'Social Security Certificates',
			(int) 7 => 'Sub Post Master',
			(int) 8 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 9 => 'Vikas Patras',
			(int) 10 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 11 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 12 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 13 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 14 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 15 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 16 => 'the Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 17 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 18 => 'Post',
			(int) 19 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 20 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 21 => 'Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh and Report',
			(int) 22 => 'the Central Bureau of Investigation',
			(int) 23 => 'Shimla',
			(int) 24 => 'Bank',
			(int) 25 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents',
			(int) 26 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 27 => 'the State Bank',
			(int) 28 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 29 => 'Court',
			(int) 30 => 'the Government Examiner',
			(int) 31 => 'the Questioned Documents',
			(int) 32 => 'Kiari',
			(int) 33 => 'Indira Vikas Patra Nos',
			(int) 34 => 'National Saving',
			(int) 35 => 'State Bank of India',
			(int) 36 => 'Postal',
			(int) 37 => 'H.P.',
			(int) 38 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 39 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 40 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 41 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 42 => 'NSC',
			(int) 43 => 'Social Security Certificates',
			(int) 44 => 'SSC',
			(int) 45 => 'Post',
			(int) 46 => 'Invoice No',
			(int) 47 => 'Kisan Vikas Patra Ex',
			(int) 48 => 'PW1/D11',
			(int) 49 => 'Court',
			(int) 50 => 'Sections',
			(int) 51 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act.10',
			(int) 52 => 'Post Office',
			(int) 53 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 54 => 'National Saving Certificates and',
			(int) 55 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 56 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 57 => 'Post Offices',
			(int) 58 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 59 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 60 => 'Indira Vikas Patras Ex',
			(int) 61 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 62 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 63 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 64 => 'Shri H.R. Dhingra',
			(int) 65 => 'Indira Vikas Patra Nos',
			(int) 66 => 'Sub Post',
			(int) 67 => 'National Saving Certificate',
			(int) 68 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 69 => 'H.S. Chopra',
			(int) 70 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 71 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Document',
			(int) 72 => 'the Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 73 => 'National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 74 => 'Exts',
			(int) 75 => 'the Documents Expert',
			(int) 76 => 'H.S. Chopra',
			(int) 77 => 'The Indira Vikas Patras',
			(int) 78 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 79 => 'Sub-Post Master',
			(int) 80 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
			(int) 81 => 'Learned Counsel'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'District Shimla',
			(int) 1 => 'Jaipur',
			(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 3 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 5 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 6 => 'Tehsil',
			(int) 7 => 'Kotkhai',
			(int) 8 => 'Ex',
			(int) 9 => 'Kiari w.e.f.1.5.1991',
			(int) 10 => 'Bikaner',
			(int) 11 => 'Jaipur'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1986 to 1990',
			(int) 1 => 'one year',
			(int) 2 => '450950',
			(int) 3 => '450995',
			(int) 4 => '136323',
			(int) 5 => '871988',
			(int) 6 => 'the year 1991',
			(int) 7 => '1986',
			(int) 8 => '4.10.1989',
			(int) 9 => 'page-81',
			(int) 10 => '9.10.1989',
			(int) 11 => '19.10.1990',
			(int) 12 => '15.6.1993',
			(int) 13 => '14th August, 1990',
			(int) 14 => '493869',
			(int) 15 => '14.8.1990',
			(int) 16 => '136323',
			(int) 17 => '871988',
			(int) 18 => '19.6.1987',
			(int) 19 => 'about 5/6 days',
			(int) 20 => 'about 15 years back'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one',
			(int) 1 => '23,79,950/-',
			(int) 2 => '30,000/-',
			(int) 3 => '19,500/-',
			(int) 4 => '5/1991',
			(int) 5 => '23,79,950/-',
			(int) 6 => '468',
			(int) 7 => '471',
			(int) 8 => '420',
			(int) 9 => '5.1.1998',
			(int) 10 => '1,000/-',
			(int) 11 => '991',
			(int) 12 => 'One',
			(int) 13 => '4/1',
			(int) 14 => '3/1',
			(int) 15 => '120',
			(int) 16 => '25',
			(int) 17 => '5',
			(int) 18 => '51',
			(int) 19 => '14',
			(int) 20 => '25.11.1986',
			(int) 21 => '19,500/-',
			(int) 22 => '30,000/-',
			(int) 23 => '991',
			(int) 24 => '10',
			(int) 25 => '10',
			(int) 26 => '5',
			(int) 27 => '51.14',
			(int) 28 => 'one'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shri P.R. Kumar'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891021',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Conspiracy - Modification of Sentence - Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Sections 120-B and 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Present appeal filed against order of conviction for offence punishable under Section 13(2) of Act and Section 120-B of IPC - Whether appellant was rightly convicted, for hatching conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust, punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Act? - Held, as per proved facts, Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates were issued in name of Appellant and its sale consideration has never been reflected in the official records - Later on, these securities were pledged with bank to secure loan applied for by appellant - This fact is sufficient to hold that Appellant had conspired with her husband the then Sub-Post Master, and fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated government securities i.e. National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras - Judgment of Special Judge is not perversed rather it is based on sound reasoning derived from evidence on record, which requires no interference - However, it was also brought to notice that Appellant remained in custody for about 5/6 days and she has deposited fine amount, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in matter - Keeping in view mitigating and extenuating circumstances and also fact that offence was committed about 15 years back, ends of justice would be met in case appellant is sentenced to period already undergone and to pay a fine amount, as imposed by Trial Court - Thus, sentence part stands modified accordingly - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-01-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Surinder Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Surinder Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellant is the wife of the absconding accused Sita Ram Vats. He remained posted as Sub-Post Master in Sub Post office Kiari, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. w.e.f. 1986 to 1990. The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In brief, the prosecution story goes like this. Sub-Post Office, Kiari was a one man office, where Sita Ram Vats aforesaid was working as a sub-Post Master. A large number of National Saving Certificates, Kisan Vikas Patras, Indira Vikas Patras and Social Security Certificates, valuing lacks of rupees were entrusted to him in his capacity as a Sub Post Master, Kiari to sell them to the intending purchasers. He is alleged to have sold securities worth Rs. 23,79,950/-, but he misappropriated the same and did not account for it. It was further alleged that some of the National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras were not shown having been sold in the name of his minor children and his wife the appellant. The appellant and her husband hatched a conspiracy to misappropriate some of the securities and to cheat some bank and in execution of the illegal designs, her husband Sita Ram issued Indira Vikas Patras worth Rs. 1,15,000/- and National Saving Certificates worth Rs. 30,000/- in the name of his wife, the appellant and raised a loan to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- against the security of Indira Vikas Patras and Rs. 19,500/- against the security of National Saving Certificates from the State Bank of India, Kiari branch. Neither the appellant nor her husband had made the payments of Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates aforesaid nor her husband in the capacity of sub-Post Master, had shown its sale to her in the books maintained in the sub-post office. When the Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates matured on its maturity date, these securities were presented by the bank to the head Post Officer at Shimla to collect its maturity value as neither the appellant nor her husband repaid the loan amount, but the postal authorities did not release the maturity value, on the ground that it was never purchased by the appellant, nor its entry was in the official records. Then the State Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of the amount against the postal authorities, which was decreed with interest to the tune of Rs. 3,67,365/-. The Director, postal authorities lodged an inquiry and during the inquiry, it was found that Sita Ram and Shakuntla both were involved in the aforesaid scant. The matter was sent to the S.P., Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh and Report No. 5/1991 CHG was registered. During the investigation of this case, the Central Bureau of Investigation took into possession the entire records of the securities maintained in the sub-post office Kiari and also in the head post office at Shimla. The specimen signatures of the appellant were taken by the Investigating Officer before the Bank Manager at Jaipur where she was residing and sent for its examination to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents alongwith disputed National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras, alleged to have been pledged with the State Bank. On the conclusion of the investigation, it was found that the appellant and her husband Sita Ram both were involved in the case and Sita Ram had misappropriated Rs. 23,79,950/- out of the sale proceeds of the various securities entrusted to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The challan was presented against the appellant and Sita Ram aforesaid under Section 120-B, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Sita Ram had absconded, therefore, proceedings against him were initiated under Section 82 Cr.P.C., but he did not turn up, as such, the charge was framed against the appellant under the aforesaid sections and Sita Ram was declared as proclaimed offender. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Before examining the prosecution witnesses, the learned Special Judge, vide order dated 5.1.1998 allowed the prosecution to lead evidence and the statement as recorded in the case against the appellant were directed to be treated as evidence against the proclaimed offender as per the provision of Section 299 Cr.P.C. The prosecution produced its witnesses to prove the charges. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. She denied the circumstances, which were found attendant upon her, however, she raised the defence that she is illiterate, she cannot sign her name. She only puts thumb impression and she did not know anything about the case, however, she did not lead any evidence in defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. At the end of the trial, the appellant was convicted for hatching the conspiracy with her husband and sentenced for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which has been assailed in this appeal, on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not believed and the learned trial court wrongly drew the adverse inference against her. Further that no handwriting or specimen signatures were obtained before the independent person/ Officer and the report of the Government Examiner of the Questioned Documents is wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the evidence on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated above, Sita Ram was the sole person handling the sub-post office at Kiari in Tehsil Kotkhai and the appellant is his wife, who is alleged to have obtained Indira Vikas Patra Nos. 450950 to 450995 valuing Rs. 1,15,000/- and National Saving certificate Nos. 136323 and 871988 to 991, valuing Rs. 30,000/-. Said certificates were not shown in the register maintained for the said purpose by her husband Sita Ram and these were used to take loan by the appellant in her name from them State Bank of India, Kiari branch by pledging the above valuable securities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. PW1 Ram Swarup Sharma, Assistant Superintendent of Post Officer was associated by Shri P.R. Kumar, Director, Postal authorities, H.P. in the inquiry of the fraud committed by the absconded accused Sita Ram during the year 1991 as the said accused was alleged to have committed the fraud in the National Saving Certificates, Kisan Vikas Patras and Indira Vikas Patras while working as sub-Post master, Kiari during his posting w.e.f. 1986 to December, 1990. According to him, Indira Vikas Patras (IVP), National Saving Certificates (NSC) and Social Security Certificates (SSC) were supplied to the sub-post office on the basis of the invoice in duplicate. On the receipt of the invoice with the certificates, the certificates mentioned above are entered in the stock register maintained by the sub-Post Master. One copy of the invoice had returned to the head office after acknowledging the certificates receipts. In the sub Post office Kiari, Sita Ram Parmar was the sole custodian of the sale proceeds. He was entrusted with the aforesaid documents/securities, which was received by him vide Invoice No. 4/1 dated 4.10.1989 (Ex.PW1/A), which were entered into the stock register Ex.PW1/B at page-81 against his signature, said Sita Ram had also received Kisan Vikas Patra Ex.PW1/C vide invoice dated 9.10.1989. The invoice No. 3/1 dated 19.10.1990, had also received by him vide invoice Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D11, which were entered in the invoice register Ex.PW1/D12.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Basically the question before this Court is whether the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned Special Judge, for hatching the conspiracy to commit the criminal breach of trust, punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. PW1 Ram Swarup Sharma, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Shimla deposed that Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates and Social Security Certificates were entrusted to the husband of the appellant for its sale. He has been able to prove that Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates were entered in Ex.PW20/D-20 in the invoice register Ex.PW1/D12 and entries Ex.PW1/D-24 and 25 in the stock register Ex.PW1/B were proved by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. PW37 Rattan Lal Sharma, Superintendent of Post Offices has proved Ex.PW37/A-1 to 5, the copies of the National Saving Certificates. According to him, the payment of the amount due on these certificates was paid to the State Bank of India, Kiari branch as these certificates were pledged with the said bank as security for the repayment of the loan to the appellant Shakuntla Vats. He also proved the copies of Indira Vikas Patras Ex.PW37/A-6 to 51. Its payment was also made to the State Bank of India, Kiari branch by the department to satisfy the decree passed by the Civil Court, in favour of the bank. The said certificates were honoured by the postal authorities, but were not genuine because these were shown to have been issued without consideration in favour of the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Now it is relevant and important to discuss the statement of PW34 K.L.Punani, who remained posted as Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Kiari w.e.f.1.5.1991 to 15.6.1993. According to him, the appellant applied for a loan to the tune of Rs. 92,000/- on 14th August, 1990, which was sanctioned by the then Manager, Shri H.R. Dhingra, whose signatures were identified by him. He also proved the loan application Ex.PW34/A and further stated that the loan secured by Shakuntla against the security of Indira Vikas Patra Nos. 450950 to 450995 (14 in numbers) issued on 25.11.1986 amounting to Rs. 1,15,000/- were issued by the Sub Post office, Kiari. Out of the sanctioned loan amount, the appellant had withdrawn Rs. 70,000/- through cheque No. 493869 dated 14.8.1990. This cheque book was issued by their branch to the appellant. He further stated that the appellant had also raised the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 19,500/- against the security of National Saving Certificate amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and these National Saving Certificates bore Nos. 136323 and 871988 to 991 and this loan was sanctioned on 19.6.1987 by Shri S.K. Chawla, the then Manager. The loan amount was not repaid by the appellant. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the bank account of the appellant was opened and the loan was sanctioned in her favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The civil suit filed by the State Bank of India was decreed as aforesaid which was not further assailed. To connect the appellant for raising the loan against the aforesaid securities, her specimen signatures were obtained by the Investigating Officer PW35 H.S. Chopra on Exts.PW35/X-1 to 10, in the presence of Shri V.K.Sharma, Manager of the State Bank of India, Bikaner, Jaipur and Alwar, which fact was not challenged in his cross-examination by the appellant, which were sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Document, for comparison with the signatures of the loan application Exts.PW34/A and marked Ex.PW43/C. As per the report of PW38 Mohinder Singh, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, the signatures on the application aforesaid and also on the reverse side of the Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates did tally with the specimen signatures on Exts.PW35/X-1 to 10, which were alleged to have been taken by the Investigating Officer PW35 H.S. Chopra. The testimony of the Documents Expert has not been assailed in his cross- examination, so it stands proved that the specimen signatures of the appellant obtained by PW35 H.S. Chopra were, of the same person who signed the application form, and is none else than the appellant. The Indira Vikas Patras and the National Saving Certificates aforesaid were issued in the name of the appellant and its sale consideration has never been reflected in the official records, these securities were pledged with the bank to secure the loan applied for by the appellant. This fact is sufficient to hold that the appellant had conspired with her husband Sita Ram the then Sub-Post Master, thus fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated the government securities Ex.PW37/A-1 to 5 the National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras Ex.PW36/A-6 to 51.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. On examination of the evidence on record, I do not find that the judgment of the conviction passed by the learned Special Judge is perverse rather it is based on the sound reasoning derived from the evidence on record, which requires no interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed on the appellant is quite harsh, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that her husband had absconded and virtually deserted her. She has her children to maintain and support. She being a rustic lady was totally dependant upon her husband and in the alleged offence; her husband has a dominant role to use her for his own ulterior motive. It was also brought to the notice that the appellant remained in the custody for about 5/6 days and she has deposited the fine amount, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. I have considered the above submissions in the light of the above circumstances. Keeping in view the mitigating and extenuating circumstances and also the fact that offence was committed about 15 years back, the ends of justice would be met in case the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone and to pay a fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial court. Thus, the sentence part stands modified accordingly. The fine amount, if not deposited, be deposited within a period one month.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Send down the records.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891021'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 120-B',
		(int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 13(2',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 120-B',
		(int) 4 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 82',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 299',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 313 Cr',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 120-B',
		(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 13(2',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 313 Cr',
		(int) 12 => 'the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 13(2'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Surinder Singh',
		(int) 1 => 'Sita Ram Vats',
		(int) 2 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 3 => 'Tehsil Kotkhai',
		(int) 4 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 5 => 'Sita Ram Vats',
		(int) 6 => 'Kisan Vikas Patras',
		(int) 7 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 8 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 9 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 10 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 11 => 'Shakuntla',
		(int) 12 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 13 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 14 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 15 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 16 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 17 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 18 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 19 => 'Nos',
		(int) 20 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 21 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 22 => 'Ram Swarup Sharma',
		(int) 23 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 24 => 'Kisan Vikas Patras',
		(int) 25 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 26 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 27 => 'Sita Ram Parmar',
		(int) 28 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 29 => 'Ram Swarup Sharma',
		(int) 30 => 'Lal Sharma',
		(int) 31 => 'Ex',
		(int) 32 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 33 => 'Shakuntla Vats',
		(int) 34 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 35 => 'PW34 K.L.Punani',
		(int) 36 => 'Shakuntla',
		(int) 37 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 38 => 'Shri S.K. Chawla',
		(int) 39 => 'Exts',
		(int) 40 => 'Mohinder Singh',
		(int) 41 => 'H.S. Chopra',
		(int) 42 => 'Sita Ram',
		(int) 43 => 'Ex',
		(int) 44 => 'Patras Ex'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sub-Post Master',
		(int) 1 => 'Sub Post',
		(int) 2 => 'H.P.',
		(int) 3 => 'the Prevention of Corruption',
		(int) 4 => 'Sub-Post Office',
		(int) 5 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 6 => 'Social Security Certificates',
		(int) 7 => 'Sub Post Master',
		(int) 8 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 9 => 'Vikas Patras',
		(int) 10 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 11 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 12 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 13 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 14 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 15 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 16 => 'the Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 17 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 18 => 'Post',
		(int) 19 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 20 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 21 => 'Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh and Report',
		(int) 22 => 'the Central Bureau of Investigation',
		(int) 23 => 'Shimla',
		(int) 24 => 'Bank',
		(int) 25 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents',
		(int) 26 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 27 => 'the State Bank',
		(int) 28 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 29 => 'Court',
		(int) 30 => 'the Government Examiner',
		(int) 31 => 'the Questioned Documents',
		(int) 32 => 'Kiari',
		(int) 33 => 'Indira Vikas Patra Nos',
		(int) 34 => 'National Saving',
		(int) 35 => 'State Bank of India',
		(int) 36 => 'Postal',
		(int) 37 => 'H.P.',
		(int) 38 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 39 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 40 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 41 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 42 => 'NSC',
		(int) 43 => 'Social Security Certificates',
		(int) 44 => 'SSC',
		(int) 45 => 'Post',
		(int) 46 => 'Invoice No',
		(int) 47 => 'Kisan Vikas Patra Ex',
		(int) 48 => 'PW1/D11',
		(int) 49 => 'Court',
		(int) 50 => 'Sections',
		(int) 51 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act.10',
		(int) 52 => 'Post Office',
		(int) 53 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 54 => 'National Saving Certificates and',
		(int) 55 => 'Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 56 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 57 => 'Post Offices',
		(int) 58 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 59 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 60 => 'Indira Vikas Patras Ex',
		(int) 61 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 62 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 63 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 64 => 'Shri H.R. Dhingra',
		(int) 65 => 'Indira Vikas Patra Nos',
		(int) 66 => 'Sub Post',
		(int) 67 => 'National Saving Certificate',
		(int) 68 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 69 => 'H.S. Chopra',
		(int) 70 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 71 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Document',
		(int) 72 => 'the Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 73 => 'National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 74 => 'Exts',
		(int) 75 => 'the Documents Expert',
		(int) 76 => 'H.S. Chopra',
		(int) 77 => 'The Indira Vikas Patras',
		(int) 78 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 79 => 'Sub-Post Master',
		(int) 80 => 'the National Saving Certificates',
		(int) 81 => 'Learned Counsel'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'District Shimla',
		(int) 1 => 'Jaipur',
		(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 3 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 5 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 6 => 'Tehsil',
		(int) 7 => 'Kotkhai',
		(int) 8 => 'Ex',
		(int) 9 => 'Kiari w.e.f.1.5.1991',
		(int) 10 => 'Bikaner',
		(int) 11 => 'Jaipur'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1986 to 1990',
		(int) 1 => 'one year',
		(int) 2 => '450950',
		(int) 3 => '450995',
		(int) 4 => '136323',
		(int) 5 => '871988',
		(int) 6 => 'the year 1991',
		(int) 7 => '1986',
		(int) 8 => '4.10.1989',
		(int) 9 => 'page-81',
		(int) 10 => '9.10.1989',
		(int) 11 => '19.10.1990',
		(int) 12 => '15.6.1993',
		(int) 13 => '14th August, 1990',
		(int) 14 => '493869',
		(int) 15 => '14.8.1990',
		(int) 16 => '136323',
		(int) 17 => '871988',
		(int) 18 => '19.6.1987',
		(int) 19 => 'about 5/6 days',
		(int) 20 => 'about 15 years back'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one',
		(int) 1 => '23,79,950/-',
		(int) 2 => '30,000/-',
		(int) 3 => '19,500/-',
		(int) 4 => '5/1991',
		(int) 5 => '23,79,950/-',
		(int) 6 => '468',
		(int) 7 => '471',
		(int) 8 => '420',
		(int) 9 => '5.1.1998',
		(int) 10 => '1,000/-',
		(int) 11 => '991',
		(int) 12 => 'One',
		(int) 13 => '4/1',
		(int) 14 => '3/1',
		(int) 15 => '120',
		(int) 16 => '25',
		(int) 17 => '5',
		(int) 18 => '51',
		(int) 19 => '14',
		(int) 20 => '25.11.1986',
		(int) 21 => '19,500/-',
		(int) 22 => '30,000/-',
		(int) 23 => '991',
		(int) 24 => '10',
		(int) 25 => '10',
		(int) 26 => '5',
		(int) 27 => '51.14',
		(int) 28 => 'one'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shri P.R. Kumar'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891021',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Smt. Shakuntla Vats. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Conspiracy - Modification of Sentence - Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Sections 120-B and 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Present appeal filed against order of conviction for offence punishable under Section 13(2) of Act and Section 120-B of IPC - Whether appellant was rightly convicted, for hatching conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust, punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Act? - Held, as per proved facts, Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates were issued in name of Appellant and its sale consideration has never been reflected in the official records - Later on, these securities were pledged with bank to secure loan applied for by appellant - This fact is sufficient to hold that Appellant had conspired with her husband the then Sub-Post Master, and fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated government securities i.e. National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras - Judgment of Special Judge is not perversed rather it is based on sound reasoning derived from evidence on record, which requires no interference - However, it was also brought to notice that Appellant remained in custody for about 5/6 days and she has deposited fine amount, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in matter - Keeping in view mitigating and extenuating circumstances and also fact that offence was committed about 15 years back, ends of justice would be met in case appellant is sentenced to period already undergone and to pay a fine amount, as imposed by Trial Court - Thus, sentence part stands modified accordingly - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-01-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Surinder Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Surinder Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellant is the wife of the absconding accused Sita Ram Vats. He remained posted as Sub-Post Master in Sub Post office Kiari, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. w.e.f. 1986 to 1990. The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In brief, the prosecution story goes like this. Sub-Post Office, Kiari was a one man office, where Sita Ram Vats aforesaid was working as a sub-Post Master. A large number of National Saving Certificates, Kisan Vikas Patras, Indira Vikas Patras and Social Security Certificates, valuing lacks of rupees were entrusted to him in his capacity as a Sub Post Master, Kiari to sell them to the intending purchasers. He is alleged to have sold securities worth Rs. 23,79,950/-, but he misappropriated the same and did not account for it. It was further alleged that some of the National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras were not shown having been sold in the name of his minor children and his wife the appellant. The appellant and her husband hatched a conspiracy to misappropriate some of the securities and to cheat some bank and in execution of the illegal designs, her husband Sita Ram issued Indira Vikas Patras worth Rs. 1,15,000/- and National Saving Certificates worth Rs. 30,000/- in the name of his wife, the appellant and raised a loan to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- against the security of Indira Vikas Patras and Rs. 19,500/- against the security of National Saving Certificates from the State Bank of India, Kiari branch. Neither the appellant nor her husband had made the payments of Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates aforesaid nor her husband in the capacity of sub-Post Master, had shown its sale to her in the books maintained in the sub-post office. When the Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates matured on its maturity date, these securities were presented by the bank to the head Post Officer at Shimla to collect its maturity value as neither the appellant nor her husband repaid the loan amount, but the postal authorities did not release the maturity value, on the ground that it was never purchased by the appellant, nor its entry was in the official records. Then the State Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of the amount against the postal authorities, which was decreed with interest to the tune of Rs. 3,67,365/-. The Director, postal authorities lodged an inquiry and during the inquiry, it was found that Sita Ram and Shakuntla both were involved in the aforesaid scant. The matter was sent to the S.P., Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh and Report No. 5/1991 CHG was registered. During the investigation of this case, the Central Bureau of Investigation took into possession the entire records of the securities maintained in the sub-post office Kiari and also in the head post office at Shimla. The specimen signatures of the appellant were taken by the Investigating Officer before the Bank Manager at Jaipur where she was residing and sent for its examination to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents alongwith disputed National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras, alleged to have been pledged with the State Bank. On the conclusion of the investigation, it was found that the appellant and her husband Sita Ram both were involved in the case and Sita Ram had misappropriated Rs. 23,79,950/- out of the sale proceeds of the various securities entrusted to him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The challan was presented against the appellant and Sita Ram aforesaid under Section 120-B, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Sita Ram had absconded, therefore, proceedings against him were initiated under Section 82 Cr.P.C., but he did not turn up, as such, the charge was framed against the appellant under the aforesaid sections and Sita Ram was declared as proclaimed offender. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Before examining the prosecution witnesses, the learned Special Judge, vide order dated 5.1.1998 allowed the prosecution to lead evidence and the statement as recorded in the case against the appellant were directed to be treated as evidence against the proclaimed offender as per the provision of Section 299 Cr.P.C. The prosecution produced its witnesses to prove the charges. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. She denied the circumstances, which were found attendant upon her, however, she raised the defence that she is illiterate, she cannot sign her name. She only puts thumb impression and she did not know anything about the case, however, she did not lead any evidence in defence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. At the end of the trial, the appellant was convicted for hatching the conspiracy with her husband and sentenced for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which has been assailed in this appeal, on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not believed and the learned trial court wrongly drew the adverse inference against her. Further that no handwriting or specimen signatures were obtained before the independent person/ Officer and the report of the Government Examiner of the Questioned Documents is wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the evidence on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated above, Sita Ram was the sole person handling the sub-post office at Kiari in Tehsil Kotkhai and the appellant is his wife, who is alleged to have obtained Indira Vikas Patra Nos. 450950 to 450995 valuing Rs. 1,15,000/- and National Saving certificate Nos. 136323 and 871988 to 991, valuing Rs. 30,000/-. Said certificates were not shown in the register maintained for the said purpose by her husband Sita Ram and these were used to take loan by the appellant in her name from them State Bank of India, Kiari branch by pledging the above valuable securities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. PW1 Ram Swarup Sharma, Assistant Superintendent of Post Officer was associated by Shri P.R. Kumar, Director, Postal authorities, H.P. in the inquiry of the fraud committed by the absconded accused Sita Ram during the year 1991 as the said accused was alleged to have committed the fraud in the National Saving Certificates, Kisan Vikas Patras and Indira Vikas Patras while working as sub-Post master, Kiari during his posting w.e.f. 1986 to December, 1990. According to him, Indira Vikas Patras (IVP), National Saving Certificates (NSC) and Social Security Certificates (SSC) were supplied to the sub-post office on the basis of the invoice in duplicate. On the receipt of the invoice with the certificates, the certificates mentioned above are entered in the stock register maintained by the sub-Post Master. One copy of the invoice had returned to the head office after acknowledging the certificates receipts. In the sub Post office Kiari, Sita Ram Parmar was the sole custodian of the sale proceeds. He was entrusted with the aforesaid documents/securities, which was received by him vide Invoice No. 4/1 dated 4.10.1989 (Ex.PW1/A), which were entered into the stock register Ex.PW1/B at page-81 against his signature, said Sita Ram had also received Kisan Vikas Patra Ex.PW1/C vide invoice dated 9.10.1989. The invoice No. 3/1 dated 19.10.1990, had also received by him vide invoice Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D11, which were entered in the invoice register Ex.PW1/D12.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Basically the question before this Court is whether the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned Special Judge, for hatching the conspiracy to commit the criminal breach of trust, punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. PW1 Ram Swarup Sharma, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Shimla deposed that Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates and Social Security Certificates were entrusted to the husband of the appellant for its sale. He has been able to prove that Indira Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates were entered in Ex.PW20/D-20 in the invoice register Ex.PW1/D12 and entries Ex.PW1/D-24 and 25 in the stock register Ex.PW1/B were proved by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. PW37 Rattan Lal Sharma, Superintendent of Post Offices has proved Ex.PW37/A-1 to 5, the copies of the National Saving Certificates. According to him, the payment of the amount due on these certificates was paid to the State Bank of India, Kiari branch as these certificates were pledged with the said bank as security for the repayment of the loan to the appellant Shakuntla Vats. He also proved the copies of Indira Vikas Patras Ex.PW37/A-6 to 51. Its payment was also made to the State Bank of India, Kiari branch by the department to satisfy the decree passed by the Civil Court, in favour of the bank. The said certificates were honoured by the postal authorities, but were not genuine because these were shown to have been issued without consideration in favour of the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Now it is relevant and important to discuss the statement of PW34 K.L.Punani, who remained posted as Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Kiari w.e.f.1.5.1991 to 15.6.1993. According to him, the appellant applied for a loan to the tune of Rs. 92,000/- on 14th August, 1990, which was sanctioned by the then Manager, Shri H.R. Dhingra, whose signatures were identified by him. He also proved the loan application Ex.PW34/A and further stated that the loan secured by Shakuntla against the security of Indira Vikas Patra Nos. 450950 to 450995 (14 in numbers) issued on 25.11.1986 amounting to Rs. 1,15,000/- were issued by the Sub Post office, Kiari. Out of the sanctioned loan amount, the appellant had withdrawn Rs. 70,000/- through cheque No. 493869 dated 14.8.1990. This cheque book was issued by their branch to the appellant. He further stated that the appellant had also raised the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 19,500/- against the security of National Saving Certificate amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and these National Saving Certificates bore Nos. 136323 and 871988 to 991 and this loan was sanctioned on 19.6.1987 by Shri S.K. Chawla, the then Manager. The loan amount was not repaid by the appellant. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the bank account of the appellant was opened and the loan was sanctioned in her favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The civil suit filed by the State Bank of India was decreed as aforesaid which was not further assailed. To connect the appellant for raising the loan against the aforesaid securities, her specimen signatures were obtained by the Investigating Officer PW35 H.S. Chopra on Exts.PW35/X-1 to 10, in the presence of Shri V.K.Sharma, Manager of the State Bank of India, Bikaner, Jaipur and Alwar, which fact was not challenged in his cross-examination by the appellant, which were sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Document, for comparison with the signatures of the loan application Exts.PW34/A and marked Ex.PW43/C. As per the report of PW38 Mohinder Singh, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, the signatures on the application aforesaid and also on the reverse side of the Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates did tally with the specimen signatures on Exts.PW35/X-1 to 10, which were alleged to have been taken by the Investigating Officer PW35 H.S. Chopra. The testimony of the Documents Expert has not been assailed in his cross- examination, so it stands proved that the specimen signatures of the appellant obtained by PW35 H.S. Chopra were, of the same person who signed the application form, and is none else than the appellant. The Indira Vikas Patras and the National Saving Certificates aforesaid were issued in the name of the appellant and its sale consideration has never been reflected in the official records, these securities were pledged with the bank to secure the loan applied for by the appellant. This fact is sufficient to hold that the appellant had conspired with her husband Sita Ram the then Sub-Post Master, thus fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated the government securities Ex.PW37/A-1 to 5 the National Saving Certificates and Indira Vikas Patras Ex.PW36/A-6 to 51.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. On examination of the evidence on record, I do not find that the judgment of the conviction passed by the learned Special Judge is perverse rather it is based on the sound reasoning derived from the evidence on record, which requires no interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed on the appellant is quite harsh, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that her husband had absconded and virtually deserted her. She has her children to maintain and support. She being a rustic lady was totally dependant upon her husband and in the alleged offence; her husband has a dominant role to use her for his own ulterior motive. It was also brought to the notice that the appellant remained in the custody for about 5/6 days and she has deposited the fine amount, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. I have considered the above submissions in the light of the above circumstances. Keeping in view the mitigating and extenuating circumstances and also the fact that offence was committed about 15 years back, the ends of justice would be met in case the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone and to pay a fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial court. Thus, the sentence part stands modified accordingly. The fine amount, if not deposited, be deposited within a period one month.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Send down the records.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891021'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 120-B, the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2, Section 120-B, the Indian Penal Code, Section 82, Section 299, Section 313 Cr, Section 120-B, the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2, Section 313 Cr, the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c, Section 13(2

PERSON: Surinder Singh, Sita Ram Vats, Kiari, Tehsil Kotkhai, Kiari, Sita Ram Vats, Kisan Vikas Patras, Kiari, Sita Ram, Kiari, Sita Ram, Shakuntla, Kiari, Sita Ram, Sita Ram, Sita Ram, Sita Ram, Sita Ram, Sita Ram, Nos, Sita Ram, Kiari, Ram Swarup Sharma, Sita Ram, Kisan Vikas Patras, Kiari, Kiari, Sita Ram Parmar, Sita Ram, Ram Swarup Sharma, Lal Sharma, Ex, Kiari, Shakuntla Vats, Kiari, PW34 K.L.Punani, Shakuntla, Kiari, Shri S.K. Chawla, Exts, Mohinder Singh, H.S. Chopra, Sita Ram, Ex, Patras Ex

NORP: J.1

ORG: Sub-Post Master, Sub Post, H.P., the Prevention of Corruption, Sub-Post Office, National Saving Certificates, Social Security Certificates, Sub Post Master, the National Saving Certificates, Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates, Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates, the State Bank of India, Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates, the Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates, Post, the State Bank of India, S.P., Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh and Report, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla, Bank, the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, National Saving Certificates, the State Bank, the Prevention of Corruption Act, Court, the Government Examiner, the Questioned Documents, Kiari, Indira Vikas Patra Nos, National Saving, State Bank of India, Postal, H.P., the National Saving Certificates, Indira Vikas Patras, Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates, NSC, Social Security Certificates, SSC, Post, Invoice No, Kisan Vikas Patra Ex, PW1/D11, Court, Sections, the Prevention of Corruption Act.10, Post Office, Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates and, Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates, Post Offices, the National Saving Certificates, the State Bank of India, Indira Vikas Patras Ex, the State Bank of India, the Civil Court, the State Bank of India, Shri H.R. Dhingra, Indira Vikas Patra Nos, Sub Post, National Saving Certificate, the State Bank of India, H.S. Chopra, the State Bank of India, the Government Examiner of Questioned Document, the Indira Vikas Patras, National Saving Certificates, Exts, the Documents Expert, H.S. Chopra, The Indira Vikas Patras, the National Saving Certificates, Sub-Post Master, the National Saving Certificates, Learned Counsel

GPE: District Shimla, Jaipur, P.C., P.C., P.C., P.C., Tehsil, Kotkhai, Ex, Kiari w.e.f.1.5.1991, Bikaner, Jaipur

DATE: 1986 to 1990, one year, 450950, 450995, 136323, 871988, the year 1991, 1986, 4.10.1989, page-81, 9.10.1989, 19.10.1990, 15.6.1993, 14th August, 1990, 493869, 14.8.1990, 136323, 871988, 19.6.1987, about 5/6 days, about 15 years back

CARDINAL: one, 23,79,950/-, 30,000/-, 19,500/-, 5/1991, 23,79,950/-, 468, 471, 420, 5.1.1998, 1,000/-, 991, One, 4/1, 3/1, 120, 25, 5, 51, 14, 25.11.1986, 19,500/-, 30,000/-, 991, 10, 10, 5, 51.14, one

PRODUCT: Shri P.R. Kumar