Jogesh Kumar Gomber vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jogesh Kumar Gomber ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ... Respondent.

__________________________________________________________________

of

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes

rt

For the petitioner. : Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate,

with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar,

Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. AG

with Ms. Parul Negi, Dy. AG.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

By way this revision petition, the petitioner has

prayed for the following relief:

"It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence passed by the learned trial

Court be set-aside and the appellant may please be

acquitted of all the changes by way of acceptance of

this appeal, in the interest of justice."

2. The case of the prosecution was that through accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Government of Himachal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

2

Pradesh received a copy of order dated 25.09.2002 purportedly passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India alongwith a letter from Rashtrpati Bhawan, New Delhi,

.

whereby accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary was recommended as appointee to the post of Joint Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Letter of recommendation for appointment was signed by accused

of

Surender Singh Bhatia as authorized signatory and accused Jogesh Kumar Gomber (present petitioner) as authorized

rt

signatory. Further as per the prosecution, accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary visited the office of Shri B.S. Nanta, Special Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in connection with his appointment many times. He also visited other high officials in this regard. However, as there was no intimation to the State Government regarding so called orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, prima facie, the entire episode was found to be suspicious and accordingly Shri Subhash Negi, the then Secretary (Personnel), to the government of Himachal Pradesh telephonically contacted Rashtrpati Bhawan, New Delhi and it was gathered that no such recommendation was ever made in favour of accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary for being appointed as Joint Secretary. According to the prosecution, accused Ashok

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

3

Kumar Chaudhary alongwith other co-accused including the present petitioner connived with each other and forged documents in order to cheat the State Government so that

.

accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary be appointed as Joint Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

3. On the basis of complaint lodged by Special Secretary to the Government of H.P., FIR was registered

of

against the accused persons and investigation was carried out. After the completion of the investigation, challan was

rt

filed in the Court and as a prima-facie case was found against the accused, accordingly, they were charged for offences punishable under Sections 419, 466, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Learned trial Court held that the prosecution was able to substantiate the guilt of accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and the present petitioner while acquitting accused S.S. Bhatia. Learned trial Court convicted Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 466, 468 and 471 of IPC and sentenced the petitioner alongwith Ashok Kumar Chaudhary to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine in the sum of ` 1,000/- each for offence punishable

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

4

under Section 120-B of IPC. Learned trial Court further sentenced both the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine in the sum of

.

` 1,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of ` 1,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 466 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine

of

of ` 1,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and

rt

fine of ` 1,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC.

5. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court and learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 28.06.2007, dismissed the appeal so filed by the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction passed against him by the learned trial Court.

6. Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the judgments of conviction passed against the present petitioner by both the learned Courts below were perverse and not sustainable either on fact or on law. Mr. Sood argued that the findings of conviction returned by learned trial Court and upheld by learned

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

5

Appellate Court were not borne out from the records of the case and both the learned Courts below in fact miserably failed to appreciate that the prosecution was not able to prove

.

its case beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner, hence, conviction of petitioner had resulted in travesty of justice. Mr. Sood, vehemently argued that it was a fit case where this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction

of

because the perversity in the findings returned by the learned Courts below against the petitioner was writ large. According

rt

to Mr. Sood, both the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the prosecution did not produce an iota of evidence on record to substantiate that the petitioner herein had hatched any criminal conspiracy with Ashok Kumar Chaudhary for commission of offences for which he had been convicted. As per Mr. Sood, the petitioner deserved acquittal on this count alone. He further argued that even otherwise both the judgments passed by learned Courts below were perverse because both the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that there was no material on record to link the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. Mr.

Sood, further argued that there was no evidence on record that petitioner either was known to accused A.K. Chaudhary or that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

6

accused A.K. Chaudahry and in furtherance of the same, he had forged any document. Mr. Sood further argued that none of the prosecution witnesses pointed towards complicity of the

.

petitioner in the crime committed. It was further argued by Mr. Sood that both the learned Courts below erred in relying upon unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence of the handwriting expert without appreciating that the opinion of a

of

handwriting expert even otherwise was only a corroborative piece of evidence and conviction cannot solely be based on it.

7.

rtOn the other hand, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned

Additional Advocate General argued that keeping in view the fact that both learned Courts below had held that the petitioner was guilty of the offences charged against him, the judgment of conviction so passed by learned Courts below did not warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Therefore, he submitted that as there was no merit in the revision petition, the same be dismissed.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments passed by both the Courts below.

9. Before proceeding in the matter, it is relevant to take note of what is the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

7

Court. It is settled law that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High

.

Court in exercise of its revisional power can interfere only if the findings of the Court whose decision is sought to be revised is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the

of

decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where judicial discretion is exercised

rt

arbitrarily or capriciously. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Versus Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Others, (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 123, that unmerited and underseved prosecution is an infringement of guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the purpose of revision jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the Court to do justice in cases of criminal jurisprudence.

10. In the backdrop of the scope of scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court, hereinafter this Court shall deal with the respective contentions of the parties.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

8

11. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and this Court shall now refer to the testimony of material prosecution witnesses.

.

12. HC Jai Prakash entered the witness box as PW1 and deposed that he had brought the requisitioned record regarding FIR registered against accused A.K. Chaudhary at Preetvihar Police Station.

of

13. Sh. Ashok Kumar, HC, Crime Branch, State CID, entered the witness box as PW2 and he deposed about the

rt

search which was carried out in the house of A.K. Chaudhary in Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.

14. Ms. Seema entered the witness box as PW3 and stated that she was working in the STD of the petitioner in Moti Nagar, Delhi. This witness did not support the case of prosecution and was declared as hostile witness. In her cross examination by the State, this witness stated that she used to work in the shop alone. She admitted it to be correct that during day time, record used to be with her. This witness denied that documents mark 7-1 to mark 7-5 were handed over to police by her. She stated that she was working with J.K. Gomber for the last one year. In her cross examination on behalf of accused A.K. Chaudhary, this witness stated that

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

9

she did not know A.K. Chaudhary, nor had he ever come to the shop of the petitioner in her presence.

15. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh entered the witness box as

.

PW4 and he stated that he works as a Chemist in Yamuna Nagar. As per his testimony, accused A.K. Chaudhary used to reside behind his house. In his entire testimony, this witness has not stated, either in his examination in chief or in cross

of

examination, that he knew the petitioner or recognized him.

Another very important aspect of the matter is that in the

rt

cross examination, this witness stated that he knew accused S.S. Bahtia who was a Lawyer, practicing on the taxation side.

16. Rasif Ahmad entered the witness box as PW5. He stated that the petitioner was running STD shop which was adjacent to his shop. As per him, when he went to the shop of petitioner, police was already there and he signed Ext. PW7/A on their asking. He denied that any document was taken into possession in his presence. He was also declared as hostile as he did not support the case of prosecution.

17. Mr. Harbans Lal entered the witness box as PW6.

As per the case of prosecution, this witness was associated during the course of investigation, however, he did not

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

10

corroborate the case of prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness.

18. PW7 ASI Chanchal Singh deposed that he was

.

posted in Police Station East, Shimla at the relevant time and that on the basis of statement of Shri B.S. Nanta recorded under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he lodged FIR Ext. PW7/A.

of

19. PW8 Dy. S.P. Swarn Singh has interalia deposed about the preparation of supplementary challan and filing of

rt

the same in the Court.

20. PW9 Satish Kumar deposed that in the year 2005 he was posted in State CID and he had deposited the case property at FSL, Junga.

21. PW10 Sheel Kumar deposed that from February, 2006, he was posted in Chanakyapuri Police Station as MHC and he had brought FIR register of Police Station Chanakyapuri. He further stated that FIR 94/03, dated 03.04.2003 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was registered only against accused Ashok Chaudhary.

22. Mr. B.S. Nanta entered the witness as PW-11 and he deposed that from April 2002 to August 2003, he remained posted as Special Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. He deposed qua the factum of accused A.K.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

11

Chaudhary having come to his office in October 2002 and having presented before him a letter addressed from the office of President of India to the effect that the said accused be

.

appointed against the post of Joint Secretary. This witness also stated that the letter which purportedly had come from the President of India's office was signed by S.S. Bhatia and J.K. Gomber as authorized signatory. This witness also stated

of

that as there was doubt about the veracity of the said communication, accordingly, it was inquired as to whether

rt

any such kind of communication had been addressed from Rashtrapati Bhawan which query revealed that no such communication in fact had been issued by Rashtrapati Bhawan and on these bases, case was registered on the ground that all the accused i.e. A.K. Chaudhary, S.S. Bahtia and J.K. Gomber, by entering into a criminal conspiracy, had created forged documents with the intent of cheating, to have appointed A.K. Chaudhary, as Joint Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

23. Mr. Subhash Chand Negi, entered the witness box as PW12. He deposed that in the year 2002-03, he was serving as Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, when accused A.K. Chaudhary, first took appointment from him on telephone and intimated that he

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

12

was to join as Joint Secretary, as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and communication issued by Rashtrapati Bhawan. He further deposed about the factum of accused

.

A.K. Chaudhary having come to Shimla and the facilities extended to him and A.K. Chaudhary producing with communication addressed by Rashtrapati Bhawan to him which was subsequently found to be incorrect. In his cross

of

examination this witness deposed that he did not make any inquiry about the documents in issue from J.K. Gomber or

rt

S.S. Bhatia. He also stated that he was not aware as to what J.K. Gomber and S.S. Bahtia do in life and he also stated that petitioner and S.S. Bhatia never visited his office.

24. Mr. Satish Mathur, Director, President's Secretariat, New Delhi, entered the witness box as PW13 and deposed that Rashtrapati Secretariat received letter Ext. P-2 from Secretary, Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 01.11.2002, to which it was responded that no directions/recommendations to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as alleged by accused A.K. Chaudhary, were ever issued. He also stated that there were no authorized signatories or additional authorized signatories of President of India as alleged by accused A.K. Chaudhary. In his cross examination, this witness stated that signatures on Ext. P-1,

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

13

Ext. P-10 and Ext. P-11 were not got investigated by their office. He admitted it to be correct that S.S. Bhatia and J.K.

Gomber were not known to him. He stated that he cannot say

.

that signatures of S.S. Bhatia and J.K. Gomber were forged.

25. Mr. Visheshwar Sharma, Scientific Officer, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, entered the witness box as PW14. This witness proved on record the signatures of the

of

signatories including the accused on the allegedly forged documents. In his cross examination on behalf of present

rt

petitioner, this witness stated that they had prepared photo enlargement but the same were not sent with the report. He also stated that no chemical test was done. He also admitted that in the age of computer, possibility of scanning cannot be ruled out. This witness further deposed that they had not used the water for spreading the ink as the same was destructive technique. He admitted that they had not reported whether the questioned signatures of the present petitioner were by fountain pen or by ball point pen. Another very important aspect of the matter is that this witness admitted it to be correct in his cross examination that the admitted signatures Ext. PW12/A-12 and PW12/A-13 were carbon signatures. His exact testimony in this regard is mentioned herein below:

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

14

"It is correct that the admitted signatures in

Ext. PW12/A-12 and PW12/A-13 are carbon

signature."

26. Investigating Officer Virender Kalia entered the

.

witness box as PW15. A perusal of testimony of this witnesses demonstrates that he has stated in his cross examination on behalf of the petitioner that he had recorded the statements of only two officials of the Rashtrapati Bhawan. He also

of

admitted it to be correct that neither did he visit the Ministry of Justice, Law and Company Affairs in course of

rt

investigation of this case nor he collected any material in this regard. He also admitted in his cross examination that petitioner never met him in Delhi nor he ever confronted the petitioner with his alleged signatures. He further admitted it to be correct that the present petitioner had a shop of communication, however, he stated that he was not aware of the fact that as to whether or not his telephone number and fax number were written outside the shop or not. He further admitted it to be correct that he did not conduct any investigation from the office of Joint Secretary, Government of India, pertaining to the documents in issue. He also admitted it to be correct that he acted against S.S. Bahtia and the present petitioner only because their names were written on the documents. He admitted it to be correct that in this

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

15

regard he neither interrogated the present petitioner nor did he ever show the documents in issue to the petitioner. In his cross examination, he further stated that he could not tell as

.

to whether the signatures of the present petitioner were original or scanned.

27. It is evident and clear from the perusal of the testimony of prosecution witnesses that PW11 and PW12

of

respectively have nowhere stated that the petitioner either came to Shimla or he visited their respective offices with

rt

accused A.K. Chaudhary. PW3, PW5 and PW6, who as per prosecution were independent witnesses, have not supported the case of prosecution. PW4, Raj Mohan Singh has nowhere stated that he ever saw the present petitioner with A.K.

Chaudhary. The FIRs, which have been exhibited by the prosecution, did not contain the name of the present petitioner and the witnesses who have proved these FIRs, clearly stated that only person named in these FIRs was A.K.

Chaudhary.

28. From the above facts one thing is very apparent and clear that no material was produced on record by the prosecution linking the present petitioner with A.K.

Chaudhary. The factum of accused A.K. Chaudhary having produced some communication, purportedly issued by

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

16

Rashtrapati Bhawan, which were purportedly signed by the present petitioner as authorized signatory does not ipso facto prove that the present petitioner hatched any criminal

.

conspiracy with accused A.K. Chaudhary and in furtherance of same, forged documents were prepared to play fraud upon the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Independent witnesses associated in this regard by the prosecution have not

of

supported its case. Though these witnesses have been subjected to extensive cross examination by the prosecution,

rt

however, nothing could be elucidated from their cross examination to further the cause of the prosecution. There is not an iota of evidence adduced by the prosecution on record to prove that in fact petitioner hatched any criminal conspiracy with A.K. Chaudhary and it was a result of such criminal conspiracy that forged documents were prepared which were purportedly signed by present petitioner in his capacity as authorized signatory. There is no evidence on record which either links the present petitioner with accused A.K. Chaudhary or from which it can be inferred that petitioner and A.K. Chaudhary had in fact connived and conspired to commit the offences for which present petitioner has been convicted. Another important aspect of the matter is that S.S. Bhatia, who was also one of the accused and against

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

17

whom allegations were similar as against the petitioner, stood acquitted by learned trial Court. Therefore, also it is not understood as to how learned trial Court convicted the

.

present petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 419, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, when on the same set of evidence, other co-accused S.S. Bhatia was acquitted by it.

29. In the present case, the findings which have been

of

returned by learned trial Court while convicting the present accused for commission of offences punishable under

rt

Sections 419, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, are not borne out from the records of the present case thus findings returned are glaringly unreasonable.

30. PW15, the IO of the case, in his cross examination has admitted that he never confronted the petitioner with his alleged signatures. Testimony of this witness has been totally ignored by the learned Courts below which has already been discussed by me in detail above.

31. Both the learned Courts below while convicting the petitioner erred in not appreciating that it was thus apparent from the record that material prosecution witnesses had admitted that the petitioner was in fact never confronted with his alleged signatures on the alleged forged documents.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

18

32. As far as the testimony of PW12, Visheshwar Sharma, Scientific Officer is concerned, this witness has admitted in his cross examination that admitted signatures of

.

the present petitioner were, in fact, carbon signatures. In other words, the so called expert has not examined the signatures of present petitioner on the alleged forged documents with original admitted signature of the present

of

petitioner because as per the admission of this expert, the alleged admitted signatures which were made available to him

rt

were carbon copy signatures only. It is settled law that opinion of handwriting expert is a weak kind of evidence and is only corroborative in nature. Neither the prosecution could link the present petitioner with A.K. Chaudhary or the offences allegedly committed and in the absence of same, accused could not have been be convicted solely on the basis of testimony of a handwriting expert.

33. Not only this, it has not been appreciated by the learned Courts below that the ground on which the Handwriting Expert purportedly formed his opinion to the effect that the forged signatures were those of the present petitioner were not mentioned in the report of the expert. This is more so when the expert has himself admitted in the Court that he applied no chemical or water test. Even otherwise as I

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

19

have already discussed above, the report of a handwriting expert is only corroborative evidence and in the absence of there being other substantive cogent material on record to

.

prove the guilt of a person, an accused cannot be convicted on the basis of the report of a handwriting expert.

34. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magan Bihari Lal v. The State of Punjab, 1977 Cri. L.J.

of

711 that it is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so

rt

with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert.

Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that there is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration and that this rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law.

35. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagmal Singh Yadav Versus Aimaduddin Ahmed Khan, 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 308:

"We have examined the opinions given by the two

experts. Even if we agree with the High Court that the

opinion expressed by Shri Sarwate is more convincing

than that of Shri Kapur, it would not be possible for us

to hold that the signatures on Ex. PW 1/9 are of the

appellant. It is settled proposition of law that the

charge of corrupt practice against a returned

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

20

candidate has to be proved like a criminal charge and

unless there is cogent evidence to take the case

beyond reasonable doubt the election cannot be set

aside. Maurya (DW 20) having been proved wholly

.

unreliable witness, the source of the letter Ex. PW 1/9

becomes highly tainted and as such doubtful. It is no

doubt correct that the signatures on the letter Ex. PW

1/9 have to be proved independently and irrespective

of the source from which the document is produced

but keeping in view the totality of the circumstances in this case it would be difficult for us to hold the charge

of

proved against the appellant only on the testimony of

the handwriting expert.

36. In Alamgir Versus State (NCT, Delhi), (2003) 1

rt

Supreme Court Cases 21, Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating the aforesaid legal position held that handwriting expert opinion simply corroborates the circumstantial evidence.

37. In Fakhruddin v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1326, Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

" Evidence of the identity of handwriting receives

treatment in three sections of the Indian Evidence Act.

They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be

proved on admission of the writer, by the evidence of

some witness in whose presence he wrote. This is

direct evidence and it is is available the evidence of

any other kind is rendered unnecessary. The evidence

Act also makes relevant the opinion of a handwriting

expert (S.45) or of one who is said to have written a

particular writing. Thus besides direct evidence which

is of course the best method of proof, the law makes

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

21

relevant two other modes. A writing may be proved to be in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of a person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the testimony of an expert

.

competent to the comparison of handwritings on a scientific basis. A third method (S. 73) is comparison by the Court with a writing made in the presence of the Court or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person.

Both under S. 45 and S. 47 the evidence is an

opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and

of

in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are rt open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become an handwriting expert in the one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. This comparison depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can be safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness."

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

22

38. Thus, in view of the above settled legal position, in my considered view, both the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the conviction of the petitioner could not have

.

been based on the opinion of the handwriting expert in the absence of there being any other substantive evidence available on record to substantiate that the alleged signatures on the forged documents were that of the petitioner only and

of

he had entered into criminal conspiracy with A.K. Chaudhary to forge the documents.

39.

rtIt is settled law that criminal conspiracy is an

agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The offence of criminal conspiracy consists in meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing to do or caused to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means and the performance of an act in terms thereof. In order to establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about the indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kehar Singh and Ors. V. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 2 SCC 609 has held:

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

23

"The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in

doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the

conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them,

nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of

.

the scheme or agreement between the parties.

Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even

discussion, of the plan is not, per se, enough."

40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Ors. V. Som Nath Thapa and Ors.

of

(1996) 4 SCC 659 has held that to establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act

rt

or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. None for the above ingredients have been proved by the prosecution against the petitioner in the present case.

41. Therefore, in view of above discussion, in my considered view, learned trial Court, in fact erred in convicting the present petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and the findings which have been returned in this regard by learned trial Court are in fact not borne out from the records of the case. Even the findings returned in the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court in appeal so filed by the present petitioner are not sustainable. Learned Appellate Court also failed to appreciate that there was no link evidence produced on record by the prosecution, linking

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

24

the present petitioner with the commission of offences, for which he was charged. Learned Appellate Court concluded that the documents on which purported signatures of the

.

present petitioner existed representing himself to be additional authorized signatory on behalf of President of India were prepared by him without appreciating that this document was neither produced by the present petitioner nor

of

prosecution had placed on record anything from which it could be deduced or inferred that said document was

rt

prepared by present petitioner for A.K. Chaudhary and purported signature on the same were those of present petitioner.

42. Therefore, in my considered view, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings conviction against present petitioner returned by the learned trial Court are perverse and there is infirmity in the same because the findings so recorded are not borne out from the records of the case and even the learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating this very important aspect of the matter.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and

the judgment of conviction passed against the present petitioner by learned trial Court in Cr. Case No. 122/2 of

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP

25

2006/2005, dated 31.01.2007, is quashed and set aside so is the judgment passed in appeal by the learned Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 12-S/10 of 2007, dated 28.06.2007.

.

Fine amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner, is ordered to be released to him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

of

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge

8th September, 2016.

(narender)

rt

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:12:32 :::HCHP