LAWS(HPH)-2011-2-15

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. YADUPATI SHARMA

Decided On February 24, 2011
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
V/S
Yadupati Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has appealed against the judgment, dated 6.8.2005, of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondent Yadupati Sharma, who was tried for offences, under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, has been acquitted.

(2.) PROSECUTION 'scase may be summed up thus. Respondent was Director of H.P. State Cooperative Wool Procurement Marketing Federation, Shimla and thus, a public servant. In his capacity as Director of the said Federation, he was required to undertake various journeys to different places, of course, at the expense of the Federation, which used to pay him TA and other expenses, on the basis of claims submitted by him, in the form of TA bills and supporting vouchers. Sometime in the year 1988, he was paid an advance of Rs. 48,000/ - to meet travelling expenses. He submitted various bills. Bills worth Rs. 6268/ - were cleared and adjusted against the advance. Other bills worth Rs. 32187/ - were not cleared. Objections were raised by PW -1 Baldev Raj, Inspector Cooperative Societies. Those objections were noted down on the bills. None of those bills was cleared, meaning thereby that their amounts were not adjusted against the aforesaid advance of Rs. 48,000/ -.

(3.) DURING the course of investigation, police recorded statements of the persons by whom the allegedly forged vouchers, submitted by the respondent with the TA Bill, purport to have been issued. Specimen writings of the respondent were obtained and Government Examiner of Questioned Documents was approached to compare the same with the allegedly forged portions of the vouchers. Expert expressed inability to express any definite opinion. On completion of investigation, Challan was filed in the Court of Special Judge, who after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr. P.C, charged the respondent with the aforesaid offences. He did not plead guilty to the charge and was, therefore, put on trial.