Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Decided On : Apr-21-2011
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' => 'Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rule 20', (int) 1 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 2 => 'Section 120-B IPC', (int) 3 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 4 => 'Section 468 IPC', (int) 5 => 'Section 471 IPC', (int) 6 => 'Rule 20', (int) 7 => 'Section 218 IPC', (int) 8 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 9 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 10 => 'Section 173', (int) 11 => 'Section 313 Cr', (int) 12 => 'Rule 20', (int) 13 => 'Section 218 IPC', (int) 14 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 15 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 16 => 'Section 218 IPC' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'three', (int) 3 => '28.6.2002', (int) 4 => '2.', (int) 5 => '468', (int) 6 => '471', (int) 7 => '420', (int) 8 => '3.', (int) 9 => '880', (int) 10 => '1782.83', (int) 11 => '63', (int) 12 => '32.5', (int) 13 => '242', (int) 14 => '180', (int) 15 => '62', (int) 16 => '133', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '880', (int) 19 => '63', (int) 20 => '2288', (int) 21 => '420', (int) 22 => '468', (int) 23 => '471', (int) 24 => '218', (int) 25 => '120', (int) 26 => '20', (int) 27 => 'four', (int) 28 => 'two', (int) 29 => '5.', (int) 30 => '245', (int) 31 => '245', (int) 32 => '6', (int) 33 => 'two', (int) 34 => '8.', (int) 35 => '943', (int) 36 => '245', (int) 37 => 'four', (int) 38 => '9', (int) 39 => '10', (int) 40 => 'only 943', (int) 41 => '886', (int) 42 => '63', (int) 43 => '3', (int) 44 => '32', (int) 45 => 'two', (int) 46 => '6', (int) 47 => 'two', (int) 48 => '11', (int) 49 => '943', (int) 50 => 'only 943', (int) 51 => 'more than 943', (int) 52 => '245', (int) 53 => '182', (int) 54 => '12', (int) 55 => '170', (int) 56 => '133', (int) 57 => '12', (int) 58 => '14', (int) 59 => 'two', (int) 60 => '13', (int) 61 => 'two', (int) 62 => '20', (int) 63 => '14', (int) 64 => '245', (int) 65 => 'four', (int) 66 => '15', (int) 67 => '471', (int) 68 => 'three' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Court', (int) 1 => 'IPC', (int) 2 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 3 => 'Sections 218 IPC', (int) 4 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 5 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 6 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 7 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 8 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 9 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 10 => 'PW-44/A2', (int) 11 => 'M/S Jai Lal &', (int) 12 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 13 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules', (int) 14 => 'Balram Parshad', (int) 15 => 'Asstt', (int) 16 => 'Trial Court', (int) 17 => 'State', (int) 18 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents', (int) 19 => 'Balram Parsad', (int) 20 => 'the Court of Special', (int) 21 => 'Public Prosecutor', (int) 22 => 'Trial Court', (int) 23 => 'Trial Court', (int) 24 => 'E-1', (int) 25 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 26 => 'Handwriting Expert', (int) 27 => 'PW-41/B-1 to PW-41/B-', (int) 28 => 'Handwriting Expert', (int) 29 => 'Ext', (int) 30 => 'PW-44/C-1', (int) 31 => 'Railway Station', (int) 32 => 'Ext', (int) 33 => 'Consignees are ‘Self&rsquo', (int) 34 => 'M/S Yogeshwar', (int) 35 => 'Court', (int) 36 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 37 => 'M/S Yogeshwar', (int) 38 => '3/E-1', (int) 39 => 'Union Bank of India', (int) 40 => 'PW-20/C. Original', (int) 41 => 'Court', (int) 42 => 'Ext', (int) 43 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 44 => 'Court', (int) 45 => 'Sections 468', (int) 46 => 'IPC' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shimla', (int) 1 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 2 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 3 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 4 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 5 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 6 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 7 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 8 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 9 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 10 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 11 => 'Railway Station', (int) 12 => 'Shogi', (int) 13 => 'Shogi', (int) 14 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 15 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 16 => 'Ex', (int) 17 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 18 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 19 => 'PW-44 Shri Mohinder Singh', (int) 20 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 21 => 'PW-44 Mohinder Singh', (int) 22 => 'Appellants Nathu Singh', (int) 23 => 'Ex', (int) 24 => 'Shogi', (int) 25 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 26 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 27 => 'Railway Receipt', (int) 28 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 29 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 30 => 'Jai Lal &', (int) 31 => 'Yogeshwar Mohan', (int) 32 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 33 => 'Yogeshwar Mohan', (int) 34 => 'Exts', (int) 35 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 36 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 37 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 38 => 'Exts', (int) 39 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 40 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 41 => 'Exts', (int) 42 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 43 => 'Appellants Nathu Singh', (int) 44 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 45 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 46 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 47 => 'Nathu Singh' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1978', (int) 1 => '1947', (int) 2 => 'a period of', (int) 3 => 'six months', (int) 4 => 'three years', (int) 5 => 'three years', (int) 6 => 'three years', (int) 7 => 'a period of', (int) 8 => 'six months', (int) 9 => '1978', (int) 10 => 'one year', (int) 11 => 'one year', (int) 12 => '1947', (int) 13 => '82-83', (int) 14 => '170/81-82', (int) 15 => 'the year 1984', (int) 16 => '170/81-82', (int) 17 => '1947', (int) 18 => '1978', (int) 19 => '2288', (int) 20 => '2288', (int) 21 => 'the year 1992', (int) 22 => '24.5.1986', (int) 23 => '182 to 1182', (int) 24 => '1978', (int) 25 => 'three years to one year', (int) 26 => 'the last about 20 years' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 1 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 2 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 3 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 4 => 'P.C.', (int) 5 => 'P.C.', (int) 6 => 'Ex', (int) 7 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 8 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 9 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 10 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 11 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 12 => 'Yamunanagar', (int) 13 => 'Shimla', (int) 14 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 15 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 16 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 17 => 'Courts' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'poles', (int) 1 => 'poles', (int) 2 => 'poles' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'E-21', (int) 1 => 'E-27', (int) 2 => 'E-21', (int) 3 => 'E-27' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subhash Chand' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '918390', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420, 218; The H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules 1978 - Section 20; Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 5(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - Sections 173, 313', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 440, 441 and 446 of 2002', 'appellant' => 'Balbir Singh and ors.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Mr. M.S.Chandel; Mr. N.S.Chandel; Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Adv.', 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2011-04-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Surjit Singh, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. By this judgment, three appeals, particulars whereof are given hereinabove, are being disposed of, because appellants in all the three appeals, have been convicted and sentenced by the same judgment of the trial Court, i.e. judgment dated 28.6.2002, of learned Special Judge, Shimla.</p> <p>2. Appellants, Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420 IPC and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, while appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, besides the aforesaid offences, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 218 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 120-B IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 420 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 468 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 471 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, under Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">In addition to that, respondents Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, under Section 218 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.</p> <p>3. Case of the prosecution, which led to the trial and conviction of the appellants, as aforesaid, may be noticed. Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh are forest contractors. They had felled certain trees on private land, after obtaining permission from the forest authorities.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">After felling those trees and converting them into sleepers and poles, they sought permission to export the timber. They submitted application Ex.PW-44/A-1, written and signed by appellant Balbir Singh, alongwith list of extracted scants and poles, Ex.PW-44/A2. As per this list, trees yielded 880 scants, having volume of 1782.83 cft. and 63 poles with 32.5 cft. volume.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Permission was granted to export the aforesaid scants and poles vide permit, Ex.PW-1/G. It appears that the entire timber could not be exported within the time limit fixed in the permit, Ex. PW-1/G and, therefore, application Ex.PW-44/A-3 was moved. Period was extended up to 26.3.1982, vide extension order, Ex.PW-1/J. Even within the extended period, the entire timber could not be exported and, therefore, fresh application was moved, which is Ex.PW-44/A-5, seeking permission to export remaining 242 pieces, which included 180 scants and 62 poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Since the original permit could not be extended or revalidated, fresh permit, bearing No. 133 of 82-83, copy Ex.PW-1/K was issued. The permit very clearly recorded that it was in continuation of earlier permit Ex. PW-1/G, the number of which was 170/81-82.</p> <p>4. In the year 1984, Vigilance Cell of the Railways conducted an inquiry and came to know that against permit Ex.PW-1/G, the number of which was 170/81-82, as extended vide order Ex.PW-1/J and fresh permit Ex.PW-1/K, against 880 scants and 63 poles, 2288 scants/poles had been exported. On the basis of that Vigilance inquiry, a case was registered against appellants Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh, partners of M/S Jai Lal & Company, in whose favour the aforesaid permits had been issued, as also against appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, Station Masters, Railway Station, Shogi under Sections 420, 468, 471, 218, 120-B IPC, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">In addition to the four appellants, two more persons, namely Om Parkash Sharma and Balram Parshad, Asstt. Station Masters, Shogi, had also been booked. Trial Court has, however, acquitted them, as no evidence was found against them. Appeal has not been filed by the State, challenging their acquittal.</p> <p>5. During the course of investigation, police seized Railway Receipts, against which the timber had been exported, as also the permits. It came to light that order of extension, copy Ex.PW-1/J had been forged, so as to raise the number of permitted quantity of scants and poles from 245 to 1245. Forgery was committed by prefixing digit ‘1’ to the figure of 245 in the permit. Tampered with copy of Ex.PW-1/J is Ex.PW-12/B.</p> <p>6. Specimen signatures and writings of the appellants were also taken and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison with their purported signatures and writings, applications for permits and extensions of period, mentioned in the permits, as also the Railway Receipts and forwarding notes etc. Handwriting Expert gave the opinion against the appellants.</p> <p>7. On completion of investigation, sanction of the competent authorities, to prosecute appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand and the two acquitted Assistant Station Masters, Om Parkash Sharma and Balram Parsad, was obtained. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., alongwith relevant papers, was filed in the Court of Special Judge. Copies of the report and other documents filed therewith, were supplied to the appellants and the acquitted accused.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Thereafter, the record was gone through and learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel were heard by the learned trial Judge. It was found that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants and their acquitted co - accused. They were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty and were therefore put to trial. Prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, besides proving various documents to substantiate the charge.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Appellants, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied that there was any conspiracy, as alleged by the prosecution or that timber, in excess of the quantity mentioned in the permit, had been exported.</p> <p>8. Learned trial Court held that case of the prosecution stood proved beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellants. It was held that against the permitted total quantity of 943 scants and poles, 2288 scants/ poles had been exported. Trial Court held that quantity of timber mentioned in Ex.PW12/B, which was in the nature of extension order, had been changed from 245 to 1245 and using this forged extension order Ex.PW12/B, excess timber had been exported. Trial Court also held that there was a conspiracy among the four appellants, to export more timber than the quantity mentioned in the permit, and in pursuance of that conspiracy, forgery of extension order Ex.PW-12/B, had been committed and also appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand had committed offence of criminal misconduct. Consequently, appellants were convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.</p> <p>9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the entire evidence carefully.</p> <p>10. It stands established beyond reasonable doubt that only 943 scants and poles (886 scants and 63 poles) had been permitted to be exported vide permit, Ex.PW-1/G. As per Railway Receipts Exts. PW-3/E-1, PW-3/E-3, PW-3/E-5, PW-3/E-7, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-33, PW-3/E-21, PW-3/E-29, PW- 3/E-11, PW-3/E-23, PW-3/E-35, PW-3/E-25, PW-3/E-27, PW- 32/A and PW-32/C, 2288 scants had been exported.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Permit number is written in all the aforesaid Railway Receipts in the hands of appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, per evidence of Handwriting Expert, PW-44 Shri Mohinder Singh, who compared the writings on the copy of these Railway Receipts, with the specimen writings of the two appellants, which are Exts. PW-21/A-1 to PW-21/A-8, in respect of appellant Nathu Singh and PW-41/B-1 to PW-41/B- 6, in respect of appellant Subhash Chand.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Corresponding forwarding notes of these Railway Receipts are also proved to be in the hands of the aforesaid two appellants, as per aforesaid opinion evidence of PW-44 Mohinder Singh, Handwriting Expert. Opinion given by the witness is Ext. PW-44/C-1. Appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand do not deny that the Railway Receipts aforesaid, and the corresponding forwarding notes, are in their hands.</p> <p>11. Permits, including forged extension order, Ex. PW12/B, were taken into possession from the records of Railway Station, Shogi, where appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand were working. As already noticed, quantity mentioned in the original permit Ex.PW-1/G is 943 scants and poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">The extension order Ex. PW-12/B, very categorically records that it is in the nature of extension of validity period of permit Ex. PW-1/G. Now, if it is so, respondents Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, were supposed to be knowing that total quantity, which had been permitted to be exported in Ex.PW-1/G, was only 943 scants and poles and, therefore, in the extension order, Ex.PW-12/B, the quantity could not have been more than 943 scants and poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Otherwise also, a bare look at Ex. PW-12/B shows that figures, representing the quantity, had been altered, by prefixing digit ‘1’ to the figure of 245, representing the total quantity and digit ‘1’ to the figure of 182, representing the figure of scants. Their plea that because of rush of work, they could not compare Ex.PW- 12/B with the original permit Ext. PW-1/G, cannot be believed, because in all the Railway Receipts, except one, permit No. mentioned is 170, even after the issuance of extension order, Ex. PW-12/B.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Only in one Railway Receipt, the permit number is 133, which was issued after the grant of fresh permit Ex. PW-1/K.</p> <p>12. Consignor, named in all the Railway Receipts and the corresponding forwarding notes, are appellants Jai Lal and Balbir Singh, by reference to their firm, named and styled as Jai Lal & Company. Consignees are ‘Self’ in a few of the Railway Receipts and a firm by the name of M/S Yogeshwar Mohan Surinder Kumar of Yamunanagar in others. Both the partners of the firm appeared before the trial Court as witnesses. They are PW-6 Yogeshwar Mohan and PW-20 Surinder Parsad. PW-6 Yogeshwar Mohan testified that he had produced certain record, including carbon copies of Railway Receipts, Exts. PW-4/A-1 to PW- 4/A-14.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Cross examination of the witness was conducted in such manner, which suggests that appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal, did not own that they were the consignors of the timber mentioned in the Railway Receipts. PW-20 Surinder Parsad, the other partner of the firm, M/S Yogeshwar Mohan Surinder Kumar, proved photo copies of the stock register, ledger, which are Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C. He stated that the original books of accounts had been destroyed after the dissolution of the firm in the year 1992. He stated that the photo stat copies Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C, had been produced by him to the police on 24.5.1986, during the course of investigation.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">As per these documents, timber against 14 Railway Receipts, Exts. PW- 3/E-1, PW-3/E-3, PW-3/E-5, PW-3/E-7, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-33, PW-3/E-21, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-11, PW-3/E-23, PW-3/E-35, PW-3/E-25, PW-3/E-27, PW-32/A and PW-32/C, had been received by the firm and it was entered in the ledger of appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal. Sale proceeds of the timber were also credited in the account of the aforesaid two appellants, maintained by the firm and the money was remitted to the appellants against various bank drafts, Exts. PW-8/B-1 to PW-8/B-13.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">The amount of these drafts was credited in the account of the appellants with Union Bank of India, Shimla, per statement of account Ex. PW-8/B-14.</p> <p>13. Learned counsel, representing these two appellants, submits that original account books, having not been produced, no reliance can be placed on photo stat copies, Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C. Original account books having been destroyed, as testified by PW-20 Surinder Parsad, they could not have been produced in the Court. Photo stat copies Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW- 20/C were taken into possession during the course of investigation. On account of destruction of the account books, these copies are admissible in evidence, as secondary evidence.</p> <p>14. In view of the above discussed evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that it stands proved conclusively that Ext. PW-12/B, extension order, had been forged, so as to raise the number of scants from 182 to 1182 and also to raise the total of scants and poles from 245 to 1245 and this forged extension order was used as genuine, by all the appellants, for export of more timber than permitted to be exported. The evidence also proves that all the four appellants had knowledge that the order Ex. PW-12/B was forged and this proves the charge of criminal conspiracy.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Excess timber having been exported, the charge under Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 also stands established. Appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand also committed the offence of criminal misconduct, by obtaining for appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal, pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. However, charge of preparation of false record, under Section 218 IPC has not been proved against appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand. Similarly, offence of cheating, under Section 420 IPC, can also not be said to have been proved against the appellants, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.</p> <p>15. In view of the above discussion, appeals filed by the appellants are partly accepted, conviction and sentence of all the appellants for offence, under Section 420 IPC and of appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand for offence, under Section 218 IPC, are set aside. Their conviction for rest of the offences, as ordered by the trial Court, is upheld. However, the sentence of substantive imprisonment, of all the appellants for offences, under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, is reduced from three years to one year, keeping in view their old age and the fact that the matter has been pending in Courts, for the last about 20 years. All the three appeals are disposed of accordingly. </p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '918390' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rule 20', (int) 1 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 2 => 'Section 120-B IPC', (int) 3 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 4 => 'Section 468 IPC', (int) 5 => 'Section 471 IPC', (int) 6 => 'Rule 20', (int) 7 => 'Section 218 IPC', (int) 8 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 9 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 10 => 'Section 173', (int) 11 => 'Section 313 Cr', (int) 12 => 'Rule 20', (int) 13 => 'Section 218 IPC', (int) 14 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 15 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 16 => 'Section 218 IPC' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'three', (int) 3 => '28.6.2002', (int) 4 => '2.', (int) 5 => '468', (int) 6 => '471', (int) 7 => '420', (int) 8 => '3.', (int) 9 => '880', (int) 10 => '1782.83', (int) 11 => '63', (int) 12 => '32.5', (int) 13 => '242', (int) 14 => '180', (int) 15 => '62', (int) 16 => '133', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '880', (int) 19 => '63', (int) 20 => '2288', (int) 21 => '420', (int) 22 => '468', (int) 23 => '471', (int) 24 => '218', (int) 25 => '120', (int) 26 => '20', (int) 27 => 'four', (int) 28 => 'two', (int) 29 => '5.', (int) 30 => '245', (int) 31 => '245', (int) 32 => '6', (int) 33 => 'two', (int) 34 => '8.', (int) 35 => '943', (int) 36 => '245', (int) 37 => 'four', (int) 38 => '9', (int) 39 => '10', (int) 40 => 'only 943', (int) 41 => '886', (int) 42 => '63', (int) 43 => '3', (int) 44 => '32', (int) 45 => 'two', (int) 46 => '6', (int) 47 => 'two', (int) 48 => '11', (int) 49 => '943', (int) 50 => 'only 943', (int) 51 => 'more than 943', (int) 52 => '245', (int) 53 => '182', (int) 54 => '12', (int) 55 => '170', (int) 56 => '133', (int) 57 => '12', (int) 58 => '14', (int) 59 => 'two', (int) 60 => '13', (int) 61 => 'two', (int) 62 => '20', (int) 63 => '14', (int) 64 => '245', (int) 65 => 'four', (int) 66 => '15', (int) 67 => '471', (int) 68 => 'three' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Court', (int) 1 => 'IPC', (int) 2 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 3 => 'Sections 218 IPC', (int) 4 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 5 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 6 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 7 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 8 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 9 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 10 => 'PW-44/A2', (int) 11 => 'M/S Jai Lal &', (int) 12 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 13 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules', (int) 14 => 'Balram Parshad', (int) 15 => 'Asstt', (int) 16 => 'Trial Court', (int) 17 => 'State', (int) 18 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents', (int) 19 => 'Balram Parsad', (int) 20 => 'the Court of Special', (int) 21 => 'Public Prosecutor', (int) 22 => 'Trial Court', (int) 23 => 'Trial Court', (int) 24 => 'E-1', (int) 25 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 26 => 'Handwriting Expert', (int) 27 => 'PW-41/B-1 to PW-41/B-', (int) 28 => 'Handwriting Expert', (int) 29 => 'Ext', (int) 30 => 'PW-44/C-1', (int) 31 => 'Railway Station', (int) 32 => 'Ext', (int) 33 => 'Consignees are ‘Self&rsquo', (int) 34 => 'M/S Yogeshwar', (int) 35 => 'Court', (int) 36 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 37 => 'M/S Yogeshwar', (int) 38 => '3/E-1', (int) 39 => 'Union Bank of India', (int) 40 => 'PW-20/C. Original', (int) 41 => 'Court', (int) 42 => 'Ext', (int) 43 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 44 => 'Court', (int) 45 => 'Sections 468', (int) 46 => 'IPC' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shimla', (int) 1 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 2 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 3 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 4 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 5 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 6 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 7 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 8 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 9 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 10 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 11 => 'Railway Station', (int) 12 => 'Shogi', (int) 13 => 'Shogi', (int) 14 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 15 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 16 => 'Ex', (int) 17 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 18 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 19 => 'PW-44 Shri Mohinder Singh', (int) 20 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 21 => 'PW-44 Mohinder Singh', (int) 22 => 'Appellants Nathu Singh', (int) 23 => 'Ex', (int) 24 => 'Shogi', (int) 25 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 26 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 27 => 'Railway Receipt', (int) 28 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 29 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 30 => 'Jai Lal &', (int) 31 => 'Yogeshwar Mohan', (int) 32 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 33 => 'Yogeshwar Mohan', (int) 34 => 'Exts', (int) 35 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 36 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 37 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 38 => 'Exts', (int) 39 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 40 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 41 => 'Exts', (int) 42 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 43 => 'Appellants Nathu Singh', (int) 44 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 45 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 46 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 47 => 'Nathu Singh' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1978', (int) 1 => '1947', (int) 2 => 'a period of', (int) 3 => 'six months', (int) 4 => 'three years', (int) 5 => 'three years', (int) 6 => 'three years', (int) 7 => 'a period of', (int) 8 => 'six months', (int) 9 => '1978', (int) 10 => 'one year', (int) 11 => 'one year', (int) 12 => '1947', (int) 13 => '82-83', (int) 14 => '170/81-82', (int) 15 => 'the year 1984', (int) 16 => '170/81-82', (int) 17 => '1947', (int) 18 => '1978', (int) 19 => '2288', (int) 20 => '2288', (int) 21 => 'the year 1992', (int) 22 => '24.5.1986', (int) 23 => '182 to 1182', (int) 24 => '1978', (int) 25 => 'three years to one year', (int) 26 => 'the last about 20 years' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 1 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 2 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 3 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 4 => 'P.C.', (int) 5 => 'P.C.', (int) 6 => 'Ex', (int) 7 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 8 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 9 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 10 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 11 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 12 => 'Yamunanagar', (int) 13 => 'Shimla', (int) 14 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 15 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 16 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 17 => 'Courts' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'poles', (int) 1 => 'poles', (int) 2 => 'poles' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'E-21', (int) 1 => 'E-27', (int) 2 => 'E-21', (int) 3 => 'E-27' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subhash Chand' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '918390', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420, 218; The H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules 1978 - Section 20; Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 5(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - Sections 173, 313', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 440, 441 and 446 of 2002', 'appellant' => 'Balbir Singh and ors.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Mr. M.S.Chandel; Mr. N.S.Chandel; Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Adv.', 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2011-04-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Surjit Singh, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. By this judgment, three appeals, particulars whereof are given hereinabove, are being disposed of, because appellants in all the three appeals, have been convicted and sentenced by the same judgment of the trial Court, i.e. judgment dated 28.6.2002, of learned Special Judge, Shimla.</p> <p>2. Appellants, Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420 IPC and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, while appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, besides the aforesaid offences, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 218 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 120-B IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 420 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 468 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 471 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, under Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">In addition to that, respondents Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, under Section 218 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.</p> <p>3. Case of the prosecution, which led to the trial and conviction of the appellants, as aforesaid, may be noticed. Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh are forest contractors. They had felled certain trees on private land, after obtaining permission from the forest authorities.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">After felling those trees and converting them into sleepers and poles, they sought permission to export the timber. They submitted application Ex.PW-44/A-1, written and signed by appellant Balbir Singh, alongwith list of extracted scants and poles, Ex.PW-44/A2. As per this list, trees yielded 880 scants, having volume of 1782.83 cft. and 63 poles with 32.5 cft. volume.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Permission was granted to export the aforesaid scants and poles vide permit, Ex.PW-1/G. It appears that the entire timber could not be exported within the time limit fixed in the permit, Ex. PW-1/G and, therefore, application Ex.PW-44/A-3 was moved. Period was extended up to 26.3.1982, vide extension order, Ex.PW-1/J. Even within the extended period, the entire timber could not be exported and, therefore, fresh application was moved, which is Ex.PW-44/A-5, seeking permission to export remaining 242 pieces, which included 180 scants and 62 poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Since the original permit could not be extended or revalidated, fresh permit, bearing No. 133 of 82-83, copy Ex.PW-1/K was issued. The permit very clearly recorded that it was in continuation of earlier permit Ex. PW-1/G, the number of which was 170/81-82.</p> <p>4. In the year 1984, Vigilance Cell of the Railways conducted an inquiry and came to know that against permit Ex.PW-1/G, the number of which was 170/81-82, as extended vide order Ex.PW-1/J and fresh permit Ex.PW-1/K, against 880 scants and 63 poles, 2288 scants/poles had been exported. On the basis of that Vigilance inquiry, a case was registered against appellants Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh, partners of M/S Jai Lal & Company, in whose favour the aforesaid permits had been issued, as also against appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, Station Masters, Railway Station, Shogi under Sections 420, 468, 471, 218, 120-B IPC, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">In addition to the four appellants, two more persons, namely Om Parkash Sharma and Balram Parshad, Asstt. Station Masters, Shogi, had also been booked. Trial Court has, however, acquitted them, as no evidence was found against them. Appeal has not been filed by the State, challenging their acquittal.</p> <p>5. During the course of investigation, police seized Railway Receipts, against which the timber had been exported, as also the permits. It came to light that order of extension, copy Ex.PW-1/J had been forged, so as to raise the number of permitted quantity of scants and poles from 245 to 1245. Forgery was committed by prefixing digit ‘1’ to the figure of 245 in the permit. Tampered with copy of Ex.PW-1/J is Ex.PW-12/B.</p> <p>6. Specimen signatures and writings of the appellants were also taken and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison with their purported signatures and writings, applications for permits and extensions of period, mentioned in the permits, as also the Railway Receipts and forwarding notes etc. Handwriting Expert gave the opinion against the appellants.</p> <p>7. On completion of investigation, sanction of the competent authorities, to prosecute appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand and the two acquitted Assistant Station Masters, Om Parkash Sharma and Balram Parsad, was obtained. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., alongwith relevant papers, was filed in the Court of Special Judge. Copies of the report and other documents filed therewith, were supplied to the appellants and the acquitted accused.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Thereafter, the record was gone through and learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel were heard by the learned trial Judge. It was found that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants and their acquitted co - accused. They were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty and were therefore put to trial. Prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, besides proving various documents to substantiate the charge.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Appellants, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied that there was any conspiracy, as alleged by the prosecution or that timber, in excess of the quantity mentioned in the permit, had been exported.</p> <p>8. Learned trial Court held that case of the prosecution stood proved beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellants. It was held that against the permitted total quantity of 943 scants and poles, 2288 scants/ poles had been exported. Trial Court held that quantity of timber mentioned in Ex.PW12/B, which was in the nature of extension order, had been changed from 245 to 1245 and using this forged extension order Ex.PW12/B, excess timber had been exported. Trial Court also held that there was a conspiracy among the four appellants, to export more timber than the quantity mentioned in the permit, and in pursuance of that conspiracy, forgery of extension order Ex.PW-12/B, had been committed and also appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand had committed offence of criminal misconduct. Consequently, appellants were convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.</p> <p>9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the entire evidence carefully.</p> <p>10. It stands established beyond reasonable doubt that only 943 scants and poles (886 scants and 63 poles) had been permitted to be exported vide permit, Ex.PW-1/G. As per Railway Receipts Exts. PW-3/E-1, PW-3/E-3, PW-3/E-5, PW-3/E-7, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-33, PW-3/E-21, PW-3/E-29, PW- 3/E-11, PW-3/E-23, PW-3/E-35, PW-3/E-25, PW-3/E-27, PW- 32/A and PW-32/C, 2288 scants had been exported.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Permit number is written in all the aforesaid Railway Receipts in the hands of appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, per evidence of Handwriting Expert, PW-44 Shri Mohinder Singh, who compared the writings on the copy of these Railway Receipts, with the specimen writings of the two appellants, which are Exts. PW-21/A-1 to PW-21/A-8, in respect of appellant Nathu Singh and PW-41/B-1 to PW-41/B- 6, in respect of appellant Subhash Chand.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Corresponding forwarding notes of these Railway Receipts are also proved to be in the hands of the aforesaid two appellants, as per aforesaid opinion evidence of PW-44 Mohinder Singh, Handwriting Expert. Opinion given by the witness is Ext. PW-44/C-1. Appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand do not deny that the Railway Receipts aforesaid, and the corresponding forwarding notes, are in their hands.</p> <p>11. Permits, including forged extension order, Ex. PW12/B, were taken into possession from the records of Railway Station, Shogi, where appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand were working. As already noticed, quantity mentioned in the original permit Ex.PW-1/G is 943 scants and poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">The extension order Ex. PW-12/B, very categorically records that it is in the nature of extension of validity period of permit Ex. PW-1/G. Now, if it is so, respondents Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, were supposed to be knowing that total quantity, which had been permitted to be exported in Ex.PW-1/G, was only 943 scants and poles and, therefore, in the extension order, Ex.PW-12/B, the quantity could not have been more than 943 scants and poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Otherwise also, a bare look at Ex. PW-12/B shows that figures, representing the quantity, had been altered, by prefixing digit ‘1’ to the figure of 245, representing the total quantity and digit ‘1’ to the figure of 182, representing the figure of scants. Their plea that because of rush of work, they could not compare Ex.PW- 12/B with the original permit Ext. PW-1/G, cannot be believed, because in all the Railway Receipts, except one, permit No. mentioned is 170, even after the issuance of extension order, Ex. PW-12/B.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Only in one Railway Receipt, the permit number is 133, which was issued after the grant of fresh permit Ex. PW-1/K.</p> <p>12. Consignor, named in all the Railway Receipts and the corresponding forwarding notes, are appellants Jai Lal and Balbir Singh, by reference to their firm, named and styled as Jai Lal & Company. Consignees are ‘Self’ in a few of the Railway Receipts and a firm by the name of M/S Yogeshwar Mohan Surinder Kumar of Yamunanagar in others. Both the partners of the firm appeared before the trial Court as witnesses. They are PW-6 Yogeshwar Mohan and PW-20 Surinder Parsad. PW-6 Yogeshwar Mohan testified that he had produced certain record, including carbon copies of Railway Receipts, Exts. PW-4/A-1 to PW- 4/A-14.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Cross examination of the witness was conducted in such manner, which suggests that appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal, did not own that they were the consignors of the timber mentioned in the Railway Receipts. PW-20 Surinder Parsad, the other partner of the firm, M/S Yogeshwar Mohan Surinder Kumar, proved photo copies of the stock register, ledger, which are Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C. He stated that the original books of accounts had been destroyed after the dissolution of the firm in the year 1992. He stated that the photo stat copies Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C, had been produced by him to the police on 24.5.1986, during the course of investigation.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">As per these documents, timber against 14 Railway Receipts, Exts. PW- 3/E-1, PW-3/E-3, PW-3/E-5, PW-3/E-7, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-33, PW-3/E-21, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-11, PW-3/E-23, PW-3/E-35, PW-3/E-25, PW-3/E-27, PW-32/A and PW-32/C, had been received by the firm and it was entered in the ledger of appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal. Sale proceeds of the timber were also credited in the account of the aforesaid two appellants, maintained by the firm and the money was remitted to the appellants against various bank drafts, Exts. PW-8/B-1 to PW-8/B-13.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">The amount of these drafts was credited in the account of the appellants with Union Bank of India, Shimla, per statement of account Ex. PW-8/B-14.</p> <p>13. Learned counsel, representing these two appellants, submits that original account books, having not been produced, no reliance can be placed on photo stat copies, Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C. Original account books having been destroyed, as testified by PW-20 Surinder Parsad, they could not have been produced in the Court. Photo stat copies Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW- 20/C were taken into possession during the course of investigation. On account of destruction of the account books, these copies are admissible in evidence, as secondary evidence.</p> <p>14. In view of the above discussed evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that it stands proved conclusively that Ext. PW-12/B, extension order, had been forged, so as to raise the number of scants from 182 to 1182 and also to raise the total of scants and poles from 245 to 1245 and this forged extension order was used as genuine, by all the appellants, for export of more timber than permitted to be exported. The evidence also proves that all the four appellants had knowledge that the order Ex. PW-12/B was forged and this proves the charge of criminal conspiracy.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Excess timber having been exported, the charge under Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 also stands established. Appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand also committed the offence of criminal misconduct, by obtaining for appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal, pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. However, charge of preparation of false record, under Section 218 IPC has not been proved against appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand. Similarly, offence of cheating, under Section 420 IPC, can also not be said to have been proved against the appellants, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.</p> <p>15. In view of the above discussion, appeals filed by the appellants are partly accepted, conviction and sentence of all the appellants for offence, under Section 420 IPC and of appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand for offence, under Section 218 IPC, are set aside. Their conviction for rest of the offences, as ordered by the trial Court, is upheld. However, the sentence of substantive imprisonment, of all the appellants for offences, under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, is reduced from three years to one year, keeping in view their old age and the fact that the matter has been pending in Courts, for the last about 20 years. All the three appeals are disposed of accordingly. </p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '918390' ) $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' => 'Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rule 20', (int) 1 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 2 => 'Section 120-B IPC', (int) 3 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 4 => 'Section 468 IPC', (int) 5 => 'Section 471 IPC', (int) 6 => 'Rule 20', (int) 7 => 'Section 218 IPC', (int) 8 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 9 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 10 => 'Section 173', (int) 11 => 'Section 313 Cr', (int) 12 => 'Rule 20', (int) 13 => 'Section 218 IPC', (int) 14 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 15 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 16 => 'Section 218 IPC' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'three', (int) 3 => '28.6.2002', (int) 4 => '2.', (int) 5 => '468', (int) 6 => '471', (int) 7 => '420', (int) 8 => '3.', (int) 9 => '880', (int) 10 => '1782.83', (int) 11 => '63', (int) 12 => '32.5', (int) 13 => '242', (int) 14 => '180', (int) 15 => '62', (int) 16 => '133', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '880', (int) 19 => '63', (int) 20 => '2288', (int) 21 => '420', (int) 22 => '468', (int) 23 => '471', (int) 24 => '218', (int) 25 => '120', (int) 26 => '20', (int) 27 => 'four', (int) 28 => 'two', (int) 29 => '5.', (int) 30 => '245', (int) 31 => '245', (int) 32 => '6', (int) 33 => 'two', (int) 34 => '8.', (int) 35 => '943', (int) 36 => '245', (int) 37 => 'four', (int) 38 => '9', (int) 39 => '10', (int) 40 => 'only 943', (int) 41 => '886', (int) 42 => '63', (int) 43 => '3', (int) 44 => '32', (int) 45 => 'two', (int) 46 => '6', (int) 47 => 'two', (int) 48 => '11', (int) 49 => '943', (int) 50 => 'only 943', (int) 51 => 'more than 943', (int) 52 => '245', (int) 53 => '182', (int) 54 => '12', (int) 55 => '170', (int) 56 => '133', (int) 57 => '12', (int) 58 => '14', (int) 59 => 'two', (int) 60 => '13', (int) 61 => 'two', (int) 62 => '20', (int) 63 => '14', (int) 64 => '245', (int) 65 => 'four', (int) 66 => '15', (int) 67 => '471', (int) 68 => 'three' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Court', (int) 1 => 'IPC', (int) 2 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 3 => 'Sections 218 IPC', (int) 4 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 5 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 6 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 7 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 8 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 9 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 10 => 'PW-44/A2', (int) 11 => 'M/S Jai Lal &', (int) 12 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 13 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules', (int) 14 => 'Balram Parshad', (int) 15 => 'Asstt', (int) 16 => 'Trial Court', (int) 17 => 'State', (int) 18 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents', (int) 19 => 'Balram Parsad', (int) 20 => 'the Court of Special', (int) 21 => 'Public Prosecutor', (int) 22 => 'Trial Court', (int) 23 => 'Trial Court', (int) 24 => 'E-1', (int) 25 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 26 => 'Handwriting Expert', (int) 27 => 'PW-41/B-1 to PW-41/B-', (int) 28 => 'Handwriting Expert', (int) 29 => 'Ext', (int) 30 => 'PW-44/C-1', (int) 31 => 'Railway Station', (int) 32 => 'Ext', (int) 33 => 'Consignees are ‘Self&rsquo', (int) 34 => 'M/S Yogeshwar', (int) 35 => 'Court', (int) 36 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 37 => 'M/S Yogeshwar', (int) 38 => '3/E-1', (int) 39 => 'Union Bank of India', (int) 40 => 'PW-20/C. Original', (int) 41 => 'Court', (int) 42 => 'Ext', (int) 43 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 44 => 'Court', (int) 45 => 'Sections 468', (int) 46 => 'IPC' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shimla', (int) 1 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 2 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 3 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 4 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 5 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 6 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 7 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 8 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 9 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 10 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 11 => 'Railway Station', (int) 12 => 'Shogi', (int) 13 => 'Shogi', (int) 14 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 15 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 16 => 'Ex', (int) 17 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 18 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 19 => 'PW-44 Shri Mohinder Singh', (int) 20 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 21 => 'PW-44 Mohinder Singh', (int) 22 => 'Appellants Nathu Singh', (int) 23 => 'Ex', (int) 24 => 'Shogi', (int) 25 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 26 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 27 => 'Railway Receipt', (int) 28 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 29 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 30 => 'Jai Lal &', (int) 31 => 'Yogeshwar Mohan', (int) 32 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 33 => 'Yogeshwar Mohan', (int) 34 => 'Exts', (int) 35 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 36 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 37 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 38 => 'Exts', (int) 39 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 40 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 41 => 'Exts', (int) 42 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 43 => 'Appellants Nathu Singh', (int) 44 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 45 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 46 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 47 => 'Nathu Singh' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1978', (int) 1 => '1947', (int) 2 => 'a period of', (int) 3 => 'six months', (int) 4 => 'three years', (int) 5 => 'three years', (int) 6 => 'three years', (int) 7 => 'a period of', (int) 8 => 'six months', (int) 9 => '1978', (int) 10 => 'one year', (int) 11 => 'one year', (int) 12 => '1947', (int) 13 => '82-83', (int) 14 => '170/81-82', (int) 15 => 'the year 1984', (int) 16 => '170/81-82', (int) 17 => '1947', (int) 18 => '1978', (int) 19 => '2288', (int) 20 => '2288', (int) 21 => 'the year 1992', (int) 22 => '24.5.1986', (int) 23 => '182 to 1182', (int) 24 => '1978', (int) 25 => 'three years to one year', (int) 26 => 'the last about 20 years' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 1 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 2 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 3 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 4 => 'P.C.', (int) 5 => 'P.C.', (int) 6 => 'Ex', (int) 7 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 8 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 9 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 10 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 11 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 12 => 'Yamunanagar', (int) 13 => 'Shimla', (int) 14 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 15 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 16 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 17 => 'Courts' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'poles', (int) 1 => 'poles', (int) 2 => 'poles' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'E-21', (int) 1 => 'E-27', (int) 2 => 'E-21', (int) 3 => 'E-27' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subhash Chand' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '918390', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420, 218; The H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules 1978 - Section 20; Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 5(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - Sections 173, 313', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 440, 441 and 446 of 2002', 'appellant' => 'Balbir Singh and ors.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Mr. M.S.Chandel; Mr. N.S.Chandel; Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Adv.', 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2011-04-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Surjit Singh, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. By this judgment, three appeals, particulars whereof are given hereinabove, are being disposed of, because appellants in all the three appeals, have been convicted and sentenced by the same judgment of the trial Court, i.e. judgment dated 28.6.2002, of learned Special Judge, Shimla.</p> <p>2. Appellants, Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420 IPC and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, while appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, besides the aforesaid offences, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 218 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 120-B IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 420 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 468 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 471 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, under Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">In addition to that, respondents Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, under Section 218 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.</p> <p>3. Case of the prosecution, which led to the trial and conviction of the appellants, as aforesaid, may be noticed. Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh are forest contractors. They had felled certain trees on private land, after obtaining permission from the forest authorities.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">After felling those trees and converting them into sleepers and poles, they sought permission to export the timber. They submitted application Ex.PW-44/A-1, written and signed by appellant Balbir Singh, alongwith list of extracted scants and poles, Ex.PW-44/A2. As per this list, trees yielded 880 scants, having volume of 1782.83 cft. and 63 poles with 32.5 cft. volume.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Permission was granted to export the aforesaid scants and poles vide permit, Ex.PW-1/G. It appears that the entire timber could not be exported within the time limit fixed in the permit, Ex. PW-1/G and, therefore, application Ex.PW-44/A-3 was moved. Period was extended up to 26.3.1982, vide extension order, Ex.PW-1/J. Even within the extended period, the entire timber could not be exported and, therefore, fresh application was moved, which is Ex.PW-44/A-5, seeking permission to export remaining 242 pieces, which included 180 scants and 62 poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Since the original permit could not be extended or revalidated, fresh permit, bearing No. 133 of 82-83, copy Ex.PW-1/K was issued. The permit very clearly recorded that it was in continuation of earlier permit Ex. PW-1/G, the number of which was 170/81-82.</p> <p>4. In the year 1984, Vigilance Cell of the Railways conducted an inquiry and came to know that against permit Ex.PW-1/G, the number of which was 170/81-82, as extended vide order Ex.PW-1/J and fresh permit Ex.PW-1/K, against 880 scants and 63 poles, 2288 scants/poles had been exported. On the basis of that Vigilance inquiry, a case was registered against appellants Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh, partners of M/S Jai Lal & Company, in whose favour the aforesaid permits had been issued, as also against appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, Station Masters, Railway Station, Shogi under Sections 420, 468, 471, 218, 120-B IPC, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">In addition to the four appellants, two more persons, namely Om Parkash Sharma and Balram Parshad, Asstt. Station Masters, Shogi, had also been booked. Trial Court has, however, acquitted them, as no evidence was found against them. Appeal has not been filed by the State, challenging their acquittal.</p> <p>5. During the course of investigation, police seized Railway Receipts, against which the timber had been exported, as also the permits. It came to light that order of extension, copy Ex.PW-1/J had been forged, so as to raise the number of permitted quantity of scants and poles from 245 to 1245. Forgery was committed by prefixing digit ‘1’ to the figure of 245 in the permit. Tampered with copy of Ex.PW-1/J is Ex.PW-12/B.</p> <p>6. Specimen signatures and writings of the appellants were also taken and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison with their purported signatures and writings, applications for permits and extensions of period, mentioned in the permits, as also the Railway Receipts and forwarding notes etc. Handwriting Expert gave the opinion against the appellants.</p> <p>7. On completion of investigation, sanction of the competent authorities, to prosecute appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand and the two acquitted Assistant Station Masters, Om Parkash Sharma and Balram Parsad, was obtained. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., alongwith relevant papers, was filed in the Court of Special Judge. Copies of the report and other documents filed therewith, were supplied to the appellants and the acquitted accused.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Thereafter, the record was gone through and learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel were heard by the learned trial Judge. It was found that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants and their acquitted co - accused. They were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty and were therefore put to trial. Prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, besides proving various documents to substantiate the charge.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Appellants, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied that there was any conspiracy, as alleged by the prosecution or that timber, in excess of the quantity mentioned in the permit, had been exported.</p> <p>8. Learned trial Court held that case of the prosecution stood proved beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellants. It was held that against the permitted total quantity of 943 scants and poles, 2288 scants/ poles had been exported. Trial Court held that quantity of timber mentioned in Ex.PW12/B, which was in the nature of extension order, had been changed from 245 to 1245 and using this forged extension order Ex.PW12/B, excess timber had been exported. Trial Court also held that there was a conspiracy among the four appellants, to export more timber than the quantity mentioned in the permit, and in pursuance of that conspiracy, forgery of extension order Ex.PW-12/B, had been committed and also appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand had committed offence of criminal misconduct. Consequently, appellants were convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.</p> <p>9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the entire evidence carefully.</p> <p>10. It stands established beyond reasonable doubt that only 943 scants and poles (886 scants and 63 poles) had been permitted to be exported vide permit, Ex.PW-1/G. As per Railway Receipts Exts. PW-3/E-1, PW-3/E-3, PW-3/E-5, PW-3/E-7, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-33, PW-3/E-21, PW-3/E-29, PW- 3/E-11, PW-3/E-23, PW-3/E-35, PW-3/E-25, PW-3/E-27, PW- 32/A and PW-32/C, 2288 scants had been exported.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Permit number is written in all the aforesaid Railway Receipts in the hands of appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, per evidence of Handwriting Expert, PW-44 Shri Mohinder Singh, who compared the writings on the copy of these Railway Receipts, with the specimen writings of the two appellants, which are Exts. PW-21/A-1 to PW-21/A-8, in respect of appellant Nathu Singh and PW-41/B-1 to PW-41/B- 6, in respect of appellant Subhash Chand.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Corresponding forwarding notes of these Railway Receipts are also proved to be in the hands of the aforesaid two appellants, as per aforesaid opinion evidence of PW-44 Mohinder Singh, Handwriting Expert. Opinion given by the witness is Ext. PW-44/C-1. Appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand do not deny that the Railway Receipts aforesaid, and the corresponding forwarding notes, are in their hands.</p> <p>11. Permits, including forged extension order, Ex. PW12/B, were taken into possession from the records of Railway Station, Shogi, where appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand were working. As already noticed, quantity mentioned in the original permit Ex.PW-1/G is 943 scants and poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">The extension order Ex. PW-12/B, very categorically records that it is in the nature of extension of validity period of permit Ex. PW-1/G. Now, if it is so, respondents Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, were supposed to be knowing that total quantity, which had been permitted to be exported in Ex.PW-1/G, was only 943 scants and poles and, therefore, in the extension order, Ex.PW-12/B, the quantity could not have been more than 943 scants and poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Otherwise also, a bare look at Ex. PW-12/B shows that figures, representing the quantity, had been altered, by prefixing digit ‘1’ to the figure of 245, representing the total quantity and digit ‘1’ to the figure of 182, representing the figure of scants. Their plea that because of rush of work, they could not compare Ex.PW- 12/B with the original permit Ext. PW-1/G, cannot be believed, because in all the Railway Receipts, except one, permit No. mentioned is 170, even after the issuance of extension order, Ex. PW-12/B.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Only in one Railway Receipt, the permit number is 133, which was issued after the grant of fresh permit Ex. PW-1/K.</p> <p>12. Consignor, named in all the Railway Receipts and the corresponding forwarding notes, are appellants Jai Lal and Balbir Singh, by reference to their firm, named and styled as Jai Lal & Company. Consignees are ‘Self’ in a few of the Railway Receipts and a firm by the name of M/S Yogeshwar Mohan Surinder Kumar of Yamunanagar in others. Both the partners of the firm appeared before the trial Court as witnesses. They are PW-6 Yogeshwar Mohan and PW-20 Surinder Parsad. PW-6 Yogeshwar Mohan testified that he had produced certain record, including carbon copies of Railway Receipts, Exts. PW-4/A-1 to PW- 4/A-14.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Cross examination of the witness was conducted in such manner, which suggests that appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal, did not own that they were the consignors of the timber mentioned in the Railway Receipts. PW-20 Surinder Parsad, the other partner of the firm, M/S Yogeshwar Mohan Surinder Kumar, proved photo copies of the stock register, ledger, which are Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C. He stated that the original books of accounts had been destroyed after the dissolution of the firm in the year 1992. He stated that the photo stat copies Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C, had been produced by him to the police on 24.5.1986, during the course of investigation.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">As per these documents, timber against 14 Railway Receipts, Exts. PW- 3/E-1, PW-3/E-3, PW-3/E-5, PW-3/E-7, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-33, PW-3/E-21, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-11, PW-3/E-23, PW-3/E-35, PW-3/E-25, PW-3/E-27, PW-32/A and PW-32/C, had been received by the firm and it was entered in the ledger of appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal. Sale proceeds of the timber were also credited in the account of the aforesaid two appellants, maintained by the firm and the money was remitted to the appellants against various bank drafts, Exts. PW-8/B-1 to PW-8/B-13.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">The amount of these drafts was credited in the account of the appellants with Union Bank of India, Shimla, per statement of account Ex. PW-8/B-14.</p> <p>13. Learned counsel, representing these two appellants, submits that original account books, having not been produced, no reliance can be placed on photo stat copies, Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C. Original account books having been destroyed, as testified by PW-20 Surinder Parsad, they could not have been produced in the Court. Photo stat copies Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW- 20/C were taken into possession during the course of investigation. On account of destruction of the account books, these copies are admissible in evidence, as secondary evidence.</p> <p>14. In view of the above discussed evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that it stands proved conclusively that Ext. PW-12/B, extension order, had been forged, so as to raise the number of scants from 182 to 1182 and also to raise the total of scants and poles from 245 to 1245 and this forged extension order was used as genuine, by all the appellants, for export of more timber than permitted to be exported. The evidence also proves that all the four appellants had knowledge that the order Ex. PW-12/B was forged and this proves the charge of criminal conspiracy.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Excess timber having been exported, the charge under Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 also stands established. Appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand also committed the offence of criminal misconduct, by obtaining for appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal, pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. However, charge of preparation of false record, under Section 218 IPC has not been proved against appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand. Similarly, offence of cheating, under Section 420 IPC, can also not be said to have been proved against the appellants, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.</p> <p>15. In view of the above discussion, appeals filed by the appellants are partly accepted, conviction and sentence of all the appellants for offence, under Section 420 IPC and of appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand for offence, under Section 218 IPC, are set aside. Their conviction for rest of the offences, as ordered by the trial Court, is upheld. However, the sentence of substantive imprisonment, of all the appellants for offences, under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, is reduced from three years to one year, keeping in view their old age and the fact that the matter has been pending in Courts, for the last about 20 years. All the three appeals are disposed of accordingly. </p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '918390' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rule 20', (int) 1 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 2 => 'Section 120-B IPC', (int) 3 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 4 => 'Section 468 IPC', (int) 5 => 'Section 471 IPC', (int) 6 => 'Rule 20', (int) 7 => 'Section 218 IPC', (int) 8 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 9 => 'Section 5(2', (int) 10 => 'Section 173', (int) 11 => 'Section 313 Cr', (int) 12 => 'Rule 20', (int) 13 => 'Section 218 IPC', (int) 14 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 15 => 'Section 420 IPC', (int) 16 => 'Section 218 IPC' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'three', (int) 3 => '28.6.2002', (int) 4 => '2.', (int) 5 => '468', (int) 6 => '471', (int) 7 => '420', (int) 8 => '3.', (int) 9 => '880', (int) 10 => '1782.83', (int) 11 => '63', (int) 12 => '32.5', (int) 13 => '242', (int) 14 => '180', (int) 15 => '62', (int) 16 => '133', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '880', (int) 19 => '63', (int) 20 => '2288', (int) 21 => '420', (int) 22 => '468', (int) 23 => '471', (int) 24 => '218', (int) 25 => '120', (int) 26 => '20', (int) 27 => 'four', (int) 28 => 'two', (int) 29 => '5.', (int) 30 => '245', (int) 31 => '245', (int) 32 => '6', (int) 33 => 'two', (int) 34 => '8.', (int) 35 => '943', (int) 36 => '245', (int) 37 => 'four', (int) 38 => '9', (int) 39 => '10', (int) 40 => 'only 943', (int) 41 => '886', (int) 42 => '63', (int) 43 => '3', (int) 44 => '32', (int) 45 => 'two', (int) 46 => '6', (int) 47 => 'two', (int) 48 => '11', (int) 49 => '943', (int) 50 => 'only 943', (int) 51 => 'more than 943', (int) 52 => '245', (int) 53 => '182', (int) 54 => '12', (int) 55 => '170', (int) 56 => '133', (int) 57 => '12', (int) 58 => '14', (int) 59 => 'two', (int) 60 => '13', (int) 61 => 'two', (int) 62 => '20', (int) 63 => '14', (int) 64 => '245', (int) 65 => 'four', (int) 66 => '15', (int) 67 => '471', (int) 68 => 'three' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Court', (int) 1 => 'IPC', (int) 2 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 3 => 'Sections 218 IPC', (int) 4 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 5 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 6 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 7 => 'Rs.1500/-', (int) 8 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 9 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 10 => 'PW-44/A2', (int) 11 => 'M/S Jai Lal &', (int) 12 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 13 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules', (int) 14 => 'Balram Parshad', (int) 15 => 'Asstt', (int) 16 => 'Trial Court', (int) 17 => 'State', (int) 18 => 'the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents', (int) 19 => 'Balram Parsad', (int) 20 => 'the Court of Special', (int) 21 => 'Public Prosecutor', (int) 22 => 'Trial Court', (int) 23 => 'Trial Court', (int) 24 => 'E-1', (int) 25 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 26 => 'Handwriting Expert', (int) 27 => 'PW-41/B-1 to PW-41/B-', (int) 28 => 'Handwriting Expert', (int) 29 => 'Ext', (int) 30 => 'PW-44/C-1', (int) 31 => 'Railway Station', (int) 32 => 'Ext', (int) 33 => 'Consignees are ‘Self&rsquo', (int) 34 => 'M/S Yogeshwar', (int) 35 => 'Court', (int) 36 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 37 => 'M/S Yogeshwar', (int) 38 => '3/E-1', (int) 39 => 'Union Bank of India', (int) 40 => 'PW-20/C. Original', (int) 41 => 'Court', (int) 42 => 'Ext', (int) 43 => 'the H.P. Forest Produce', (int) 44 => 'Court', (int) 45 => 'Sections 468', (int) 46 => 'IPC' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Shimla', (int) 1 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 2 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 3 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 4 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 5 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 6 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 7 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 8 => 'Jai Lal Banstu', (int) 9 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 10 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 11 => 'Railway Station', (int) 12 => 'Shogi', (int) 13 => 'Shogi', (int) 14 => 'Railway Receipts', (int) 15 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 16 => 'Ex', (int) 17 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 18 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 19 => 'PW-44 Shri Mohinder Singh', (int) 20 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 21 => 'PW-44 Mohinder Singh', (int) 22 => 'Appellants Nathu Singh', (int) 23 => 'Ex', (int) 24 => 'Shogi', (int) 25 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 26 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 27 => 'Railway Receipt', (int) 28 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 29 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 30 => 'Jai Lal &', (int) 31 => 'Yogeshwar Mohan', (int) 32 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 33 => 'Yogeshwar Mohan', (int) 34 => 'Exts', (int) 35 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 36 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 37 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 38 => 'Exts', (int) 39 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 40 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 41 => 'Exts', (int) 42 => 'PW-20 Surinder Parsad', (int) 43 => 'Appellants Nathu Singh', (int) 44 => 'Balbir Singh', (int) 45 => 'Jai Lal', (int) 46 => 'Nathu Singh', (int) 47 => 'Nathu Singh' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1978', (int) 1 => '1947', (int) 2 => 'a period of', (int) 3 => 'six months', (int) 4 => 'three years', (int) 5 => 'three years', (int) 6 => 'three years', (int) 7 => 'a period of', (int) 8 => 'six months', (int) 9 => '1978', (int) 10 => 'one year', (int) 11 => 'one year', (int) 12 => '1947', (int) 13 => '82-83', (int) 14 => '170/81-82', (int) 15 => 'the year 1984', (int) 16 => '170/81-82', (int) 17 => '1947', (int) 18 => '1978', (int) 19 => '2288', (int) 20 => '2288', (int) 21 => 'the year 1992', (int) 22 => '24.5.1986', (int) 23 => '182 to 1182', (int) 24 => '1978', (int) 25 => 'three years to one year', (int) 26 => 'the last about 20 years' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 1 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 2 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 3 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 4 => 'P.C.', (int) 5 => 'P.C.', (int) 6 => 'Ex', (int) 7 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 8 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 9 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 10 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 11 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 12 => 'Yamunanagar', (int) 13 => 'Shimla', (int) 14 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 15 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 16 => 'Subhash Chand', (int) 17 => 'Courts' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'poles', (int) 1 => 'poles', (int) 2 => 'poles' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'E-21', (int) 1 => 'E-27', (int) 2 => 'E-21', (int) 3 => 'E-27' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subhash Chand' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '918390', 'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420, 218; The H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules 1978 - Section 20; Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 5(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - Sections 173, 313', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 440, 441 and 446 of 2002', 'appellant' => 'Balbir Singh and ors.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Mr. M.S.Chandel; Mr. N.S.Chandel; Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advs.', 'counseldef' => 'Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Adv.', 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2011-04-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Surjit Singh, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. By this judgment, three appeals, particulars whereof are given hereinabove, are being disposed of, because appellants in all the three appeals, have been convicted and sentenced by the same judgment of the trial Court, i.e. judgment dated 28.6.2002, of learned Special Judge, Shimla.</p> <p>2. Appellants, Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420 IPC and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, while appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, besides the aforesaid offences, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 218 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 120-B IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 420 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 468 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 471 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, under Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">In addition to that, respondents Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, under Section 218 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.</p> <p>3. Case of the prosecution, which led to the trial and conviction of the appellants, as aforesaid, may be noticed. Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh are forest contractors. They had felled certain trees on private land, after obtaining permission from the forest authorities.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">After felling those trees and converting them into sleepers and poles, they sought permission to export the timber. They submitted application Ex.PW-44/A-1, written and signed by appellant Balbir Singh, alongwith list of extracted scants and poles, Ex.PW-44/A2. As per this list, trees yielded 880 scants, having volume of 1782.83 cft. and 63 poles with 32.5 cft. volume.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Permission was granted to export the aforesaid scants and poles vide permit, Ex.PW-1/G. It appears that the entire timber could not be exported within the time limit fixed in the permit, Ex. PW-1/G and, therefore, application Ex.PW-44/A-3 was moved. Period was extended up to 26.3.1982, vide extension order, Ex.PW-1/J. Even within the extended period, the entire timber could not be exported and, therefore, fresh application was moved, which is Ex.PW-44/A-5, seeking permission to export remaining 242 pieces, which included 180 scants and 62 poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Since the original permit could not be extended or revalidated, fresh permit, bearing No. 133 of 82-83, copy Ex.PW-1/K was issued. The permit very clearly recorded that it was in continuation of earlier permit Ex. PW-1/G, the number of which was 170/81-82.</p> <p>4. In the year 1984, Vigilance Cell of the Railways conducted an inquiry and came to know that against permit Ex.PW-1/G, the number of which was 170/81-82, as extended vide order Ex.PW-1/J and fresh permit Ex.PW-1/K, against 880 scants and 63 poles, 2288 scants/poles had been exported. On the basis of that Vigilance inquiry, a case was registered against appellants Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh, partners of M/S Jai Lal & Company, in whose favour the aforesaid permits had been issued, as also against appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, Station Masters, Railway Station, Shogi under Sections 420, 468, 471, 218, 120-B IPC, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">In addition to the four appellants, two more persons, namely Om Parkash Sharma and Balram Parshad, Asstt. Station Masters, Shogi, had also been booked. Trial Court has, however, acquitted them, as no evidence was found against them. Appeal has not been filed by the State, challenging their acquittal.</p> <p>5. During the course of investigation, police seized Railway Receipts, against which the timber had been exported, as also the permits. It came to light that order of extension, copy Ex.PW-1/J had been forged, so as to raise the number of permitted quantity of scants and poles from 245 to 1245. Forgery was committed by prefixing digit ‘1’ to the figure of 245 in the permit. Tampered with copy of Ex.PW-1/J is Ex.PW-12/B.</p> <p>6. Specimen signatures and writings of the appellants were also taken and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison with their purported signatures and writings, applications for permits and extensions of period, mentioned in the permits, as also the Railway Receipts and forwarding notes etc. Handwriting Expert gave the opinion against the appellants.</p> <p>7. On completion of investigation, sanction of the competent authorities, to prosecute appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand and the two acquitted Assistant Station Masters, Om Parkash Sharma and Balram Parsad, was obtained. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., alongwith relevant papers, was filed in the Court of Special Judge. Copies of the report and other documents filed therewith, were supplied to the appellants and the acquitted accused.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Thereafter, the record was gone through and learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel were heard by the learned trial Judge. It was found that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants and their acquitted co - accused. They were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty and were therefore put to trial. Prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, besides proving various documents to substantiate the charge.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Appellants, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied that there was any conspiracy, as alleged by the prosecution or that timber, in excess of the quantity mentioned in the permit, had been exported.</p> <p>8. Learned trial Court held that case of the prosecution stood proved beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellants. It was held that against the permitted total quantity of 943 scants and poles, 2288 scants/ poles had been exported. Trial Court held that quantity of timber mentioned in Ex.PW12/B, which was in the nature of extension order, had been changed from 245 to 1245 and using this forged extension order Ex.PW12/B, excess timber had been exported. Trial Court also held that there was a conspiracy among the four appellants, to export more timber than the quantity mentioned in the permit, and in pursuance of that conspiracy, forgery of extension order Ex.PW-12/B, had been committed and also appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand had committed offence of criminal misconduct. Consequently, appellants were convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.</p> <p>9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the entire evidence carefully.</p> <p>10. It stands established beyond reasonable doubt that only 943 scants and poles (886 scants and 63 poles) had been permitted to be exported vide permit, Ex.PW-1/G. As per Railway Receipts Exts. PW-3/E-1, PW-3/E-3, PW-3/E-5, PW-3/E-7, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-33, PW-3/E-21, PW-3/E-29, PW- 3/E-11, PW-3/E-23, PW-3/E-35, PW-3/E-25, PW-3/E-27, PW- 32/A and PW-32/C, 2288 scants had been exported.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Permit number is written in all the aforesaid Railway Receipts in the hands of appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, per evidence of Handwriting Expert, PW-44 Shri Mohinder Singh, who compared the writings on the copy of these Railway Receipts, with the specimen writings of the two appellants, which are Exts. PW-21/A-1 to PW-21/A-8, in respect of appellant Nathu Singh and PW-41/B-1 to PW-41/B- 6, in respect of appellant Subhash Chand.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Corresponding forwarding notes of these Railway Receipts are also proved to be in the hands of the aforesaid two appellants, as per aforesaid opinion evidence of PW-44 Mohinder Singh, Handwriting Expert. Opinion given by the witness is Ext. PW-44/C-1. Appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand do not deny that the Railway Receipts aforesaid, and the corresponding forwarding notes, are in their hands.</p> <p>11. Permits, including forged extension order, Ex. PW12/B, were taken into possession from the records of Railway Station, Shogi, where appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand were working. As already noticed, quantity mentioned in the original permit Ex.PW-1/G is 943 scants and poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">The extension order Ex. PW-12/B, very categorically records that it is in the nature of extension of validity period of permit Ex. PW-1/G. Now, if it is so, respondents Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, were supposed to be knowing that total quantity, which had been permitted to be exported in Ex.PW-1/G, was only 943 scants and poles and, therefore, in the extension order, Ex.PW-12/B, the quantity could not have been more than 943 scants and poles.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Otherwise also, a bare look at Ex. PW-12/B shows that figures, representing the quantity, had been altered, by prefixing digit ‘1’ to the figure of 245, representing the total quantity and digit ‘1’ to the figure of 182, representing the figure of scants. Their plea that because of rush of work, they could not compare Ex.PW- 12/B with the original permit Ext. PW-1/G, cannot be believed, because in all the Railway Receipts, except one, permit No. mentioned is 170, even after the issuance of extension order, Ex. PW-12/B.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Only in one Railway Receipt, the permit number is 133, which was issued after the grant of fresh permit Ex. PW-1/K.</p> <p>12. Consignor, named in all the Railway Receipts and the corresponding forwarding notes, are appellants Jai Lal and Balbir Singh, by reference to their firm, named and styled as Jai Lal & Company. Consignees are ‘Self’ in a few of the Railway Receipts and a firm by the name of M/S Yogeshwar Mohan Surinder Kumar of Yamunanagar in others. Both the partners of the firm appeared before the trial Court as witnesses. They are PW-6 Yogeshwar Mohan and PW-20 Surinder Parsad. PW-6 Yogeshwar Mohan testified that he had produced certain record, including carbon copies of Railway Receipts, Exts. PW-4/A-1 to PW- 4/A-14.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Cross examination of the witness was conducted in such manner, which suggests that appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal, did not own that they were the consignors of the timber mentioned in the Railway Receipts. PW-20 Surinder Parsad, the other partner of the firm, M/S Yogeshwar Mohan Surinder Kumar, proved photo copies of the stock register, ledger, which are Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C. He stated that the original books of accounts had been destroyed after the dissolution of the firm in the year 1992. He stated that the photo stat copies Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C, had been produced by him to the police on 24.5.1986, during the course of investigation.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">As per these documents, timber against 14 Railway Receipts, Exts. PW- 3/E-1, PW-3/E-3, PW-3/E-5, PW-3/E-7, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-33, PW-3/E-21, PW-3/E-29, PW-3/E-11, PW-3/E-23, PW-3/E-35, PW-3/E-25, PW-3/E-27, PW-32/A and PW-32/C, had been received by the firm and it was entered in the ledger of appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal. Sale proceeds of the timber were also credited in the account of the aforesaid two appellants, maintained by the firm and the money was remitted to the appellants against various bank drafts, Exts. PW-8/B-1 to PW-8/B-13.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">The amount of these drafts was credited in the account of the appellants with Union Bank of India, Shimla, per statement of account Ex. PW-8/B-14.</p> <p>13. Learned counsel, representing these two appellants, submits that original account books, having not been produced, no reliance can be placed on photo stat copies, Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW-20/C. Original account books having been destroyed, as testified by PW-20 Surinder Parsad, they could not have been produced in the Court. Photo stat copies Exts. PW-20/A, PW-20/B and PW- 20/C were taken into possession during the course of investigation. On account of destruction of the account books, these copies are admissible in evidence, as secondary evidence.</p> <p>14. In view of the above discussed evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that it stands proved conclusively that Ext. PW-12/B, extension order, had been forged, so as to raise the number of scants from 182 to 1182 and also to raise the total of scants and poles from 245 to 1245 and this forged extension order was used as genuine, by all the appellants, for export of more timber than permitted to be exported. The evidence also proves that all the four appellants had knowledge that the order Ex. PW-12/B was forged and this proves the charge of criminal conspiracy.</p> <p style="margin-left: 30px;">Excess timber having been exported, the charge under Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 also stands established. Appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand also committed the offence of criminal misconduct, by obtaining for appellants Balbir Singh and Jai Lal, pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. However, charge of preparation of false record, under Section 218 IPC has not been proved against appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand. Similarly, offence of cheating, under Section 420 IPC, can also not be said to have been proved against the appellants, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.</p> <p>15. In view of the above discussion, appeals filed by the appellants are partly accepted, conviction and sentence of all the appellants for offence, under Section 420 IPC and of appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand for offence, under Section 218 IPC, are set aside. Their conviction for rest of the offences, as ordered by the trial Court, is upheld. However, the sentence of substantive imprisonment, of all the appellants for offences, under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, is reduced from three years to one year, keeping in view their old age and the fact that the matter has been pending in Courts, for the last about 20 years. All the three appeals are disposed of accordingly. </p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '918390' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - 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: Rule 20, Section 5(2, Section 120-B IPC, Section 420 IPC, Section 468 IPC, Section 471 IPC, Rule 20, Section 218 IPC, Section 5(2, Section 5(2, Section 173, Section 313 Cr, Rule 20, Section 218 IPC, Section 420 IPC, Section 420 IPC, Section 218 IPC
CARDINAL: 1, three, three, 28.6.2002, 2., 468, 471, 420, 3., 880, 1782.83, 63, 32.5, 242, 180, 62, 133, 4, 880, 63, 2288, 420, 468, 471, 218, 120, 20, four, two, 5., 245, 245, 6, two, 8., 943, 245, four, 9, 10, only 943, 886, 63, 3, 32, two, 6, two, 11, 943, only 943, more than 943, 245, 182, 12, 170, 133, 12, 14, two, 13, two, 20, 14, 245, four, 15, 471, three
ORG: Court, IPC, the H.P. Forest Produce, Sections 218 IPC, the Prevention of Corruption Act, Rs.1500/-, Rs.1500/-, Rs.1500/-, the H.P. Forest Produce, the Prevention of Corruption Act, PW-44/A2, M/S Jai Lal &, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, Balram Parshad, Asstt, Trial Court, State, the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Balram Parsad, the Court of Special, Public Prosecutor, Trial Court, Trial Court, E-1, Railway Receipts, Handwriting Expert, PW-41/B-1 to PW-41/B-, Handwriting Expert, Ext, PW-44/C-1, Railway Station, Ext, Consignees are ‘Self&rsquo, M/S Yogeshwar, Court, Railway Receipts, M/S Yogeshwar, 3/E-1, Union Bank of India, PW-20/C. Original, Court, Ext, the H.P. Forest Produce, Court, Sections 468, IPC
PERSON: Shimla, Jai Lal Banstu, Balbir Singh, Nathu Singh, Nathu Singh, Jai Lal Banstu, Balbir Singh, Balbir Singh, Jai Lal Banstu, Balbir Singh, Nathu Singh, Railway Station, Shogi, Shogi, Railway Receipts, Nathu Singh, Ex, Nathu Singh, Nathu Singh, PW-44 Shri Mohinder Singh, Nathu Singh, PW-44 Mohinder Singh, Appellants Nathu Singh, Ex, Shogi, Nathu Singh, Nathu Singh, Railway Receipt, Jai Lal, Balbir Singh, Jai Lal &, Yogeshwar Mohan, PW-20 Surinder Parsad, Yogeshwar Mohan, Exts, Balbir Singh, Jai Lal, PW-20 Surinder Parsad, Exts, Balbir Singh, Jai Lal, Exts, PW-20 Surinder Parsad, Appellants Nathu Singh, Balbir Singh, Jai Lal, Nathu Singh, Nathu Singh
DATE: 1978, 1947, a period of, six months, three years, three years, three years, a period of, six months, 1978, one year, one year, 1947, 82-83, 170/81-82, the year 1984, 170/81-82, 1947, 1978, 2288, 2288, the year 1992, 24.5.1986, 182 to 1182, 1978, three years to one year, the last about 20 years
GPE: Subhash Chand, Subhash Chand, Subhash Chand, Subhash Chand, P.C., P.C., Ex, Subhash Chand, Subhash Chand, Subhash Chand, Subhash Chand, Subhash Chand, Yamunanagar, Shimla, Subhash Chand, Subhash Chand, Subhash Chand, Courts
NORP: poles, poles, poles
PRODUCT: E-21, E-27, E-21, E-27
FAC: Subhash Chand