SURINDER SINGH, J.

(1.) The respondents were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the State filed the instant appeal.

(2.) Heard and gone through the record.

(3.) In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. Respondent Ashok Thakur, at the relevant time, was not a student of evening College of H.P. University. He is alleged to have applied for the issuance of concessional student pass by putting fictitious stamp/seal and the signatures of the Principal in connivance of respondent No. 2. PW-1 Prem Singh Thakur was the Regional Manager at the relevant time and he received a letter from PW-2 Jagjiwan, who was the then Incharge of CBA, Main Bus Sand, Shimla that respondent Ashok Thakur wrongly applied for the concessional bus pass and forged the signatures of the Principal. On the basis of this information Ext.PW1/A, complaint Ext.PW1/B was addressed to the SHO by him for the registration of a case. A formal FIR was registered. Police swung into action and investigated the case. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The respondents were arrested. The specimen hand writings were taken before the Executive Magistrate, Shimla but not sent for its comparison to the hand writing expert and after completing the investigation, case was presented for the trial of the respondents.

(4.) The respondents faced full-fledged trial for the offences aforesaid and at the end, they were acquitted on the grounds; contradiction in statement of witnesses, for not sending the specimen samples with the disputed hand writing to the Govt. Examiner and further that respondent Ashok Thakur was not the same person to whom bus pass was issued earlier and the photo on the application of the said respondent was not attested which was required under the rules.

(5.) As a matter of fact, the concessional forms were being issued by the office of Principal, Evening College, Shimla to the regular students. PW-4 Bishambar Dutt, Principal, has explained the procedure for completing the formalities before it is submitted to the HRTC office. According to him, the forms, which were to filled up by the students amd verified by the Clerk concerned. Thereafter, these are sent to him. He stated that an official came to him and had shown the concessional form to him with respect to Ashok Thakur to enquire whether he was a student in the college. It was got verified but it was found that he was not the student of his college and to this effect he made his endorsement on the form Ext.PW1/C. He further stated that the signatures of the Principal shown on the said form did not pertain to him. He further stated that respondent Mahesh Chand Mehta was Peon in the Science College. He further stated that at the relevant time, there were 1000 students in the evening college but he did not know the respondent Ashok personally. He admitted in cross-examination that there were many students in the name of Ashok and that respondent Ashok never brought the application form to him for attestation. He also stated that the HRTC officials never took his specimen signatures and also admitted that respondent Ashok did not apply for the bus pass. According to him, the photo, which was appended on the application form was required to be attested but in the instant case it was not attested.

(6.) PW-2 Jagjiwan, who had earlier issued pass in the name of Ashok Thakur, Junior Assistant stated that the form in question which was received from PW-7Balwant Kumar was not having any photograph. Therefore, it was returned later he came along with Ashok Kumar with a photo affixed on the form. He further stated that he was pressurized by Balwant Kumar to issue pass, he knew that it was a fictitious document, but it is quite surprising that despite this he did not make any report to any Superior Officer. As against this, PW-7 denied the fact that he had pressurize PW-2 aforesaid as alleged. He also stated that the concessional bus pass was earlier issued in the name of Ashok Thakur was a student at that time. According to him his relations with PW-2 Jagjiwan were strained. He expressed his ignorance whether the form in question was got verified from the college authorities. Therefore, both these statements are poles apart, contradicting materially each other.

(7.) In fact PW-1 Prem Singh Thakur only forwarded complaint received from PW-2 Jagjiwan. PW-3 is Smt. Manmohan. She stated having issued the pass earlier in favour of respondent Ashok Thakur w.e.f. 19.12.2001 to 17.10.2002 did not contain the photograph. She admitted if the photo appended on the application is not attested the bus pass is not issued, rather the application is rejected. She also stated that the application form Ext.PW1/C brought by Balwant aforesaid. In cross-examination, she made the contrary statement to that of PW-4, Bishamwar Dutt, Principal, evening college that their office had the specimen signatures of the Principal along with the seal and further stated that she had verified the signatures and thereafter the application was sent to Section Officer. She further stated that pass Ext.PW2/A was not issued in favour of respondent Ashok Thakur. PW-10 ASI Het Ram, I.O., admitted that he did not send the specimen signatures along with the disputed form for its comparison to hand writing expert or for comparison of seals. .

(8.) On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, it is manifestly clear that respondent Ashok Thakur, was a student in the college, Ext.PW1/C the application which is said to have been fabricated in order to get the bus concessional pass on the allegation that he was not a student at the relevant time. . Shri Bishamber Dutt PW-4, Principal of the College though denied that the verification on the said application was not under his signature. To this effect he also appended his endorsement dated 21.12.2001. During the investigation of this case the police did not record the statement of the officials of the College, who were responsible to maintain the record of admissions to find out if Ashok Kumar was not a student in the College. Principal did not say what record was verified by him to make his endorsement on the form aforesaid. Not only this, PW-1 Prem Singh, Regional Manager specifically stated that the application is not entertained unless the photo is attested by head of the Institution.

(9.) In the instant case, prima-facie, when the form in question was presented for issuance of pass, at the first instance it did not contain the photograph and when according to PW-2 it was submitted by PW-7 Balwant it was having the photograph but it was not attested. If the rule provided that the photograph should have been attested it was incumbent upon the PW-2 Jagjiwan not to forward it to the authority but should have been rejected outright at that stage. The statement made by PW-2 Jagjiwan that he was pressurize by PW-7 Balwant is denied by PW-7 Balwant himself but stated that he was not pulling well with PW-2 aforesaid.

(10.) To bring home the guilt of respondent No. 1, it was also incumbent upon the investigating agency to send the form in question to the hand writing expert along with the specimen signatures for its comparison in order to link the respondent with the offences charged. There is no evidence on record to show that the form in question was filled in by respondent Ashok Thakur and also that the signatures of the Principal were forged by respondent No. 2 Mahesh Kumar.

(11.) Further, the hand writing and specimen signatures of Mahesh respondent No. 2 were taken before the Executive Magistrate, which are Ext.PW6/A-1 to Ext.PW6/A-4 but surprisingly, these were also not sent for the examination by the hand writing expert. Although the seal appended on the form Ext.PW1/C was also taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW5/A but the same was also not sent for its comparison in order to find out whether it is the same seal or some other seal was used on the form Ext.PW1/C. It has also come in the statement of PW-3 Smt. Manmohan that even the duplicate pass also contained the photograph of the person in favour it is issued but the duplicate pass Ext.PW2/A produced on record, which is alleged to be in respect of respondent No. 1 Ashok Thakur did not contain any photograph.

(12.) Thus for the aforesaid reasons, the conspiracy of the respondents to get the bus concessional pass by forging the signatures and stamps/seal on Ext.PW1/C that of the Principal could not be proved. There is also no reliable evidence that respondent Ashok Thakur had presented the form Ext.PW1/C to the HRTC authorities for getting the bus concessional pass. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against any of the respondents. Thus, their acquittal cannot be interfered with, as the findings of the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the evidence on record. As such, the appeal is without merit, hence, dismissed.

(13.) The respondents are hereby discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceeding of this case.