{"id":124879,"date":"2008-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-26T01:39:03","modified_gmt":"2017-03-25T20:09:03","slug":"high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At … vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court<\/div>\n
High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At … vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nCr Rev No. 54 OF 1999 AND Cr M P No. 166 OF 1999    \nShabeer Ahmad   \nPetitioners\nState of J&K\nRespondent  \n!Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate\n^Mrs. Shaista Hakim, Dy. Advocate General \n\nHonble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge\nDate: 03.09.2008 \n:J U D G M E N T: \n<\/pre>\n
Petitioner, Shabeer Ahmad, (hereinafter for short as
\naccused) who was working as Junior Assistant in Govt. Girls High
\nSchool, Darhal Malkian, stands convicted under Section 409
\nRanbir Penal Code by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nRajouri, vide judgment dated 12.01.1999, which is further affirmed
\nby learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri, vide judgment dated
\n03.07.1999. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000\/-, in default
\nthereof, to further undergo imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved
\nof both the judgments, he has preferred the instant revision
\npetition, which already stands admitted and his substantive
\nsentence has been suspended during the pendency of the instant
\npetition. Presently he is on bail.\n<\/p>\n
Although the prosecution case, in detail, is narrated in both
\nthe impugned judgments, yet it needs to be reflected once again in
\nbrief.\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
Head Master, Govt. Girls High School, Darhal Malkian,
\nlodged a written complaint in Police Station Darhal on 19.12.1992
\nalleging therein that the petitioner and one M. K. Handoo had
\nmisappropriated the government money relating to the following
\ntreasury vouchers:-\n<\/p>\n
Rs.98916-20 Paisa drawn on 14.08.92 vide Treasury
\nVoucher No.267
\nRs.7608 drawn on 14.08.92 vide Treasury Voucher No.266
\nRs.10125-00 drawn on 29.07.92 vide Treasury Voucher
\nNo.379
\nRs.2656-00 drawn on 29.07.92 vide Treasury Voucher
\nNo.378.
\nAt the relevant time the accused was working as Junior
\nAssistant in the school, whereas aforesaid Handoo was Drawing &
\nDisbursing Officer (hereinhafter for short as DDO) of the school.
\nThe allegation was that both had drawn the aforesaid amount from
\nthe government treasury Rajouri as Pay Fixation Arrears of the
\nemployees, but did not disburse the same to the concerned officials.
\nPrimarily, on these allegations F.I.R. No.115\/1992 was registered
\nwith the concerned police. During investigation it revealed that in
\nfact the petitioner had misappropriated government money to the
\ntune of Rs.1,19,305.20\/- for which he could not account for,
\ntherefore, a challan (final report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C.)
\nwas submitted against him only and aforesaid Handoo was not
\nfound to be involved in the present case by the police in its
\ninvestigation, instead he was put in the list of witnesses by the
\nprosecution and examined also during the trial.
\nThe accused was, accordingly, charged under Section 409
\nR.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
The plea of the accused is of false implication in this case
\nshifting the entire liability to the aforesaid M.K. Handoo.
\nI have heard Mr. Anil Sethi, learned counsel for the
\npetitioner, Mrs. Shaista Hakim, learned Dy. Advocate General
\nrepresenting the State and have also gone through both the
\nimpugned judgments, the evidence and the other relevant material
\nfrom trial Court record.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sethi at the very outset submits that although the
\naccused had taken the shelter under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before
\nboth the Courts below but the same was not legally available to him
\nand, therefore, he does not press the instant petition on that count.
\nThe foremost attack launched by him is that, in fact, the real
\nculprit in this case was M. K. Handoo, Zonal Education Officer, who
\nwas admittedly the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO). He has
\nbeen let off by the prosecuting agency during investigation without
\nany basis and even the trial Court has given him a clean chit by
\nsimply saying that he was very careless in discharging his duties.
\nAccording to the learned counsel, without passing the bills by Mr.
\nHandoo, it was not possible to draw the amount from the treasury.
\nEven otherwise, after taking out the money from the treasury, the
\nsame was subject to verification by the DDO and thereafter the
\nentries were to be made in the cash book. Only then the amount
\nwas to be disbursed to the concerned employees. Therefore, it was
\nthe prime duty of the DDO to check and have the initial control
\nover the cash received from the treasury. He states that even on
\ndrawl register on page 36, the words cancelled and not drawn are
\nwritten and this is cross-checked by the signatures of DDO.
\nAccording to Mr. Sethi, the entire procedure is provided in
\n4<\/span>
\nFinancial Rules and the present case, if examined from that angle,
\nthen the DDO only was to be booked in this case and not the
\naccused, who had simply acted upon the instructions of aforesaid
\nMr. Handoo. He has drawn the attention to the relevant entry from
\ndrawl register.\n<\/p>\n
Taking the prosecution case, yet on another technical aspect,
\nMr. Sethi submits that the accused had at no stage any dominion
\nover the aforesaid amount as he was never entrusted with that and,
\ntherefore, he can not be held liable for misappropriating the same
\nor to convert into his own use. To elaborate his view point further,
\nMr. Sethi submits that for the purpose of proving the charge of
\nSection 409 RPC, the prosecution is supposed to prove the main
\ningredients viz.; an entrustment of the property or dominion over
\nthe property in a capacity as a public servant; there should be
\ncriminal breach of trust with regard to that property and there
\nshould be conversion of the said property for personal use of the
\npublic servant. In the present case, the prosecution has not been
\nable to prove any of the three ingredients so as to bring it within
\nthe mischief of Section 409 RPC. While referring to the statement
\nof certain witnesses (five in number from the trial Court record),
\nMr. Sethi submits that all these witnesses have deposed that the
\naccused was a accounts clerk in the school and have nowhere
\nstated that he was dealing with the cash. Therefore, merely dealing
\nwith the accounts as Accountant would not amount to deal with
\nthe cash. Even otherwise, disbursement was also not the job of the
\naccused at all. From all these facts, Mr. Sethi wants to develop
\nthat both the Courts below have fallen into grave error by
\npresuming that the accused was required to make the
\n5<\/span>
\ndisbursement and, as such, the view taken against the accused is
\nbad in the eyes of law calling for the interference of this Court.
\nMr. Sethi then assails the conviction submitting that not
\naffording a reasonable opportunity to the accused to lead his
\ndefence is a glaring irregularity in the procedure resulting into
\nmiscarriage of justice and this flaw also calls for interference of this
\nCourt so as to remit the entire case to the trial Court. According to
\nhim, a valuable right of defence has been virtually snatched from
\nthe accused causing grave prejudice to him. He submits that the
\naccused has been facing a grave charge, which has very serious
\nramifications, and, therefore, under the present set of
\ncircumstances especially when the accused has been facing a
\nprotracted trial for the last more than sixteen years, if is not able to
\nhave a verdict of acquittal in his favour on the basis of weaknesses
\npointed out hereinabove, his alternative prayer for remand of the
\ncase to the trial Court enabling him to put up his effective defence
\nmay be acceded to.\n<\/p>\n
In order to strike his aforesaid view point home, Mr. Sethi
\nsubmits that on 05.11.1993 the accused had placed on record two
\nreceipts as is evident from the short order (zimini order) dated
\n05.11.1993 and when PW Mohd. Ameen (Headmaster\/ Incharge of
\nGovt. Girls High School) had stepped into witness box on
\n27.07.1994, one of the receipts dated 14.08.1992 amounting to
\nRs.94,000\/- was shown to him suggesting that the same was
\nbearing his signatures, but he denied the said factum. A specific
\nsuggestion was put to him that he himself had embezzled the
\namount and made the accused scapegoat in this case. So far as
\nthe second receipt is concerned, it related to another witness Mohd.\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
Akbar, who appeared as prosecution witness on 21.09.1994 but he
\nhad not deposed against the accused and perhaps for that reason
\nthe said receipt was not shown to him. Mr. Sethi submits that
\nsince the main witness namely Mohd. Ameen had denied his
\nsignatures on the receipt dated 14.08.1992, the accused after the
\nclosing of the prosecution evidence, moved an application under
\nSection 73\/45 of the Evidence Act before the trial Court on
\n23.02.1998 asserting therein that in order to come to the just
\nconclusion of the case, he be granted an opportunity to lead the
\nevidence by way of getting the report of the expert with regard to
\nthe author of those receipts. The plea was that the prosecution had
\nnot come with clean hands and that even the investigation was also
\nsilent on that aspect. The grievance now projected is that the said
\napplication stands rejected by the learned trial Court vide order
\ndated 24.03.1998 without any basis observing that allowing of the
\nsaid application would amount to wastage of time. Attention of the
\nCourt has been drawn to the said application and the impugned
\norder from the trial Court file.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sethi submits that, in fact, the aforesaid application was
\nrejected by the learned trial Judge by passing a cursory order and
\ninstead of sending the admitted and disputed signatures to the
\nhandwriting expert, took upon himself the job of comparing the
\nsignatures. He submits that although Section 73 of the Evidence
\nAct, empowers the Court to compare the disputed writing with the
\nspecimen\/ admitted writing shown to be genuine, the prudence
\ndemands that Court should be extremely slow in venturing an
\nopinion on the basis of mere comparison, more so, when the quality
\nof evidence in respect of admitted writing is not of high standard.\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 73 of the Evidence Act does not give an absolute power to
\nthe Court to act as an handwriting expert and in the absence of
\ntestimony of any handwriting expert in the matter, it would b e
\nrather too much for the judge to use his own eyes for the purposes
\nof deciding a very vital point. According to Mr. Sethi, the learned
\ntrial Judge, while rejecting the application of the accused, has
\ncompared the signatures on the receipt produced by the accused
\nwith some signatures appended by the signatory in the Court file.
\nHe contends that to fall within the definition admitted signatures
\nthe signatures should be such, which are affixed or used prior to
\nthe offence so that the genuineness thereof cannot be challenged.
\nAny clever person can change his signatures in the Court and make
\nthat look different from the one appended by him on earlier
\noccasion. Therefore, the learned Magistrate being of non-technical
\nperson instead of comparing the signatures himself should leave it
\nto the wisdom of handwriting expert. The learned trial Judge was
\nnot able to differentiate the two handwritings and it depends upon
\nmany factors like pressure upon the paper, angle, softness,
\nhardness and mode of writing etc., and these aspects these cannot
\nbe compared with a naked eye. Therefore, rejecting the application
\nby the learned trial Judge in a hurried manner has caused grave
\nprejudice to the accused as he has been deprived a valuable right of
\ndefence. He submits that the prosecution was afforded long seven
\nyears to complete its evidence, whereas the accused was not at all
\ngiven a reasonable time to defend his cause. He is ready to face the
\nultimate outcome but through proper and fair trial, and, therefore,
\nprays for remand of the case. In support of his contentions, Mr.
\nSethi relies upon the following two judgments:-\n<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
1. State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, AIR<\/a> 1979
\nSC page 14\n<\/p>\n
2. State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh and
\nanother, AIR 1992 SC page 2100
\nMr. Sethi lastly submits that though he is on sound footing,
\nyet in the event of conviction of the accused being upheld by this
\nCourt, his case deserves to be dealt with leniently with regard to
\nquantum of sentence. He has already faced a protracted trial of
\nlong sixteen years in which he has not only lost his job, his entire
\nfamily of which he is the sole bread winner is shattered. It consists
\nof female children also. He then submits that the accused also
\nremained in custody for sometime during trial and for few odd days
\nafter his appeal was dismissed by learned lower Appeallate Court,
\nand, therefore, he may be let off with the period already undergone
\nby him.\n<\/p>\n
Arguments advanced by Mr. Sethi are repudiated by Mrs.
\nHakim vehemently on all counts praying for the dismissal of the
\ninstant revision petition.\n<\/p>\n
Revision petition on hand is to be rescanned within a settled
\nlimited zone of appreciation. Admittedly, the conviction suffered by
\nthe accused stands confirmed by the lower Appellate Court and,
\ntherefore, it would call for interference only when there is a
\nmanifest illegality committed by both Courts below or the gross
\nirregularity apparent on record committed in the procedure.
\nLet me examine this case first of all with regard to charge. In
\nthis regard, I have gone through the statements of certain relevant
\nwitnesses, who have deposed against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
The pay arrear bills amounting to Rs.1,19,305.20\/- have
\nbeen prepared by the accused and after getting them signed by the
\nZonal Education Officer, he presented them in the Government
\nTreasury. PW Mohd. Ameen, who was Incharge Headmaster of the
\nschool in 1992, has deposed that the accused was Junior Assistant
\nin the school and he was drawing pay and T.A., of the employees of
\nthe school and used to disburse the same to the employees. He has
\nfurther stated that accused also used to maintain the cash-book
\nand drawl register.\n<\/p>\n
In year 1992, the grades of the employees were revised on
\naccount of which employees of the school were entitle to their
\narrears w.e.f. 1987 to 1992. The arrears due to them were not
\npaid as is clear from the statements of certain witnesses. It has
\nalso come in evidence of some of the employees that accused
\navoided and told them that there was no cash in the treasury, and
\nhe had even concealed the drawl register, cash-book and other
\nrelevant record, which were ultimately taken into custody during
\ninvestigation.\n<\/p>\n
PW Ghulam Hussain has categorically stated that in
\nSeptember, 1992 when he joined the school as Headmaster, the
\nemployees demanded their pay arrears and on his inspection and
\nchecking he found that the bills for pay arrears were entered in the
\ndrawl register, but certain entries had been cancelled. He
\nthereafter got the bills prepared and submitted to the treasury
\nthrough one teacher namely Mohd. Azam, but came to know that
\nthe bills had already been drawn. On enquiry, he came to know
\nthat the accused was the concerned clerk dealing with the accounts
\ni.e. pay etc., and had drawn an amount of Rs.1,19,305.20 paise
\n10<\/span>
\nfrom the government treasury. He also stated that on page 36 of
\nthe drawl register the words cancelled and not drawn were found
\nwritten by the accused and the DDO had crossed his signatures.
\nPW Romesh Chander, the then accountant in treasury, has
\ndeposed that the accused was dealing with the bills and he was
\ncoming to the treasury to encash them. He also states about the
\npayment made to the accused with regard to the arrear bills of the
\nemployees of the school.\n<\/p>\n
Statement of PW Mohd. Azam, the then treasury officer, is
\nalso relevant in this regard. He has stated that in 1992 he was
\nworking as treasury officer in Government Treasury and accused
\nused to visit the treasury as cashier of the school. Drawl register of
\nthe school was shown to him and on the basis of the record, he
\nstated that on 09.07.1992 payment was drawn from the treasury
\nand vide page 36 of the drawl register, the alleged treasury voucher
\nNos. 266, 267, 378 & 379 were drawn from the treasury after bills
\nwere passed by him. No doubt, with regard to words not drawn on
\npage 36 of the drawl register, this witness stated that it was not
\nknown to him as in whose hand those words were written as it was
\nin possession of the school official.\n<\/p>\n
I do not feel the necessity of reproducing the statements of
\ncertain employees, who when stepped into the witness box, stated
\nthat the accused was incharge of drawl and disbursement, and he
\nhad drawn the amount from the treasury with regard to the arrears
\nof the employees, but the same were not paid to them.
\nNo doubt, in the statement of aforesaid PW Ghulam Hussain,
\nit has come that on page 36 of the drawl register the words
\ncancelled and not drawn are cross-checked by the DDO, but in my
\n11<\/span>
\nview, the same would not make any difference. Though, Mr. Sethi
\nfrom this fact situation has made an attempt to demolish the case
\nof the prosecution saying that it was Mr. Handoo, the DDO who
\nhad crossed his signatures on this writing and, therefore, the
\nentrustment of the amount to the accused is not proved and not
\nthat the prosecution has let him off, even the Court has also given
\nhim a clean chit by dubbing him a careless official only, yet in my
\nview, the argument advanced by him has no weightage at all as it is
\nclear from the statement of PW Romesh Chander, the Accountant of
\nthe treasury, that at the relevant time the accused was dealing with
\nthe payment to the Education Department and he on behalf of the
\nDDO was presenting the bills of the school and in the same manner
\nhe had presented the pay arrear bills relating to the present case in
\nthe treasury, which were duly passed and signed for payment to the
\nbank. He has also stated that the DDO had authorized the accused
\nto encash the bills and, therefore, the payments were made to him.
\nAfter rescanning all the relevant facts, I do not find any
\ndifficulty in holding that the accused being a Junior Assistant was
\ndealing with the accounts of the school at the relevant time and he
\nhad drawn the alleged bills amounting to Rs.1,19,305.20 paise vide
\nTreasury voucher Nos. 266 & 267 dated 14.08.1992 and Treasury
\nvoucher Nos.378 & 379 dated 29.07.1992. He is, thus, solely
\nresponsible in this case, who was duly entrusted with the amount
\nas he is one, who got all the bills cleared from the treasury but did
\nnot disburse them further to the employees. Entrustment is, thus,
\nproved to the hilt. Therefore, the argument advanced by Mr. Sethi
\nwith regard to non-involvement of Mr. Handoo the then DDO, is
\nneither here nor there as the same would not advance his cause to
\n12<\/span>
\nany extent. Admittedly, he was initially booked but subsequently
\nnot challaned as the prosecution agency did not find any fault from
\nhis side. The learned trial Court has also observed that he was
\ncareless in discharging his duties and did not bother to follow the
\nrules governing the drawl and disbursement of government money,
\nbut at the same time held that he was not a party to the crime
\ncommitted by the accused alone and that is the reason that he was
\nnot arrayed as accused during trial. I do not find any good cause to
\ndisturb that finding so as to extend any benefit towards the
\naccused, whose case, in my considered view falls squarely within
\nthe mischief of Section 409 RPC.\n<\/p>\n
As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any
\nmanifest illegality committed by both the Courts below in
\nappreciating the prosecution evidence causing miscarriage of
\njustice.\n<\/p>\n
Let me now advert to the so-called irregularity projected by
\nMr. Sethi in the procedure stating that a reasonable opportunity to
\nthe accused was not afforded to lead his defence evidence. He in
\nthis regard relies upon two receipts, one allegedly prepared and
\nsigned by PW Mohd. Ameen and the other by Mohd. Akbar. So far
\nas receipt relating to Mohd. Akbar is concerned, admittedly, it was
\nnot shown to him when he stepped into the witness box. The
\nargument advanced by Mr. Sethi that there was no need of showing
\nthe said receipt to this witness as he had not said much against the
\naccused is not appealing to me. This witness has categorically
\nstated that he had not received the arrears of pay fixation and
\nwhenever he enquired from the accused or even from Z.E.O., the
\nexplanation was that the bills were not passed. Thereafter, he was
\n13<\/span>
\ntransferred from the school in December, 1992 and ultimately he
\ngot the arrears in May, 1994 as double drawl. He has further stated
\nthat the accused used to draw and disburse the pay to the
\nemployees.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to the receipt amounting to Rs.94,000\/- dated
\n14.08.1992, when PW Mohd. Ameen stepped into the witness box,
\nin his cross-examination, the said receipt was shown to him and he
\ndenied the factum of the same being signed or issued by him. His
\nstatement was recorded on 27.07.1994. Admitted position on
\nrecord is that the aforesaid receipt and the other receipt allegedly
\nissued by PW Mohd. Akbar were placed on record for the first time
\nby the accused on 05.11.1993 as is evident from the zimini order.
\nUndoubtedly, these were in possession of the accused only and he
\ndid not make any attempt to build his defence on the basis of the
\nsaid receipts during investigation. Those receipts were simply
\ntendered by his counsel on 05.11.1993 and one of the receipts
\namounting to Rs.94,000\/- was shown to PW Mohd. Ameen for the
\nfirst time on 27.07.1994 when he appeared as prosecution witness.
\nThe accused cannot get out of the fact situation till that date, he
\nwas not banking upon the said receipt. As is evident from the
\nrecord, after the closure of prosecution evidence, he moved an
\napplication on 23.02.1998 under Sections 45, 67 and 73 of the
\nEvidence Act for comparison of the signatures of the witnesses by a
\nhandwriting expert, which came to be dismissed by the trial Judge
\non 24.03.1998. I have gone through the said order once again
\nminutely and the same when reproduced, reads thus:-
\nP.O. present. Sh. Pervez Ahmed Adv. for the
\ndefence. Accused is present in person also. An
\n14<\/span>
\napplication has been moved by defence counsel on
\n23.2.1998 under sections 45, 67 and 73 of Evidence Act
\nfor comparison of signatures by expert. This
\napplication has been resisted by the prosecution and the
\nobjection putforth by prosecution are on record.
\nHeard arguments and perused the file.\n<\/p>\n
The case against the accused is that has
\nmisappropriated the Govt. money and the case was on
\nthe stage of final arguments, when the instant
\napplication came to be moved by defence counsel. As
\nper defence counsel an amount of Rs.94500\/- has been
\nreceived by PW6 Mohd Ameen against a receipt dated
\n14.8.1992. The receipt is on the file. As per accused
\nthe receipt has been signed by PW6 Mohd Ameen and
\nhe has denied having signed the such receipt in his
\nexamination in the court, so the alleged signatures of
\nPW6 on the receipt for Rs.94500\/- dated 14.8.92 need
\nto be compared with the admitted signatures of PW6 on
\nhis statement recorded in the court on 27.7.94.
\nSimilarly counsel for the accused has submitted that
\nPW Mohd Akber has also signed a receipt for Rs.9700\/-
\nand his statement too has been recorded and his
\nsignatures too on the statement be compared with the
\ndisputed signature on the receipt. After considering the
\nmatter thoughfully. I am of the opinion that the matter
\ndoes not need an expert opinion. I have compared the
\nsignatures myself in terms of section 73 of Evidence Act
\nso far as signatures of PW6 on his statement is
\nconcerned. I feel that, it is no way similar to that of
\ndisputed signature on the receipt dated 14.8.1992. The
\nexpert opinion is needed in the very complicated cases
\nof disputing writing and in the instant case, I feel that
\nthere is no similarity between the admitted signature
\n15<\/span>
\nand the disputed signature. Would there be any
\nsimilarity in the signatures, the opinion of expert was
\nneeded but I feel that the admitted signature and
\ndisputed signature of PW6 Mohd Ameen are totally
\ndissimilar and by naked eye even it can be observed that
\nthe signatures are not alike and so I feel that it would
\nbe mere wastage of time & money to refer the matter to
\nexpert. Similar is the case with PW Mohd Akber also.
\nCounsel for the defence has in the open court conceded
\nthat there is no similarity in the admitted signature and
\ndisputed signature of PW Mohd Akber and so he
\nadmitted that his signature does not need any expert
\nopinion.\n<\/p>\n
In the light of foregoing reasons, I feel that the
\nopinion of expert as sought by defence counsel in
\nrespect of the admitted and disputed signatures of PW
\nMohd Amin and Mohd Akber is not needed at all as the
\nsignatures are totally different and do not demand any
\nexpert examination. I feel that the application is
\ngroundless (sick) so rejected. File shall come up for
\nfinal arguments on 11.4.1998.
\nNo doubt, that the Court while comparing the disputed
\nwriting should be slow in venturing its own opinion on the basis of
\nmere comparison made by a naked eye, but it depends upon the
\nfacts of an individual case. In the case on hand, the learned trial
\nCourt has categorically observed that the expert opinion is needed
\nin a very complicated case of disputed writing and in the present
\ncase there is no similarity between the admitted signatures and the
\ndisputed signatures. The observation of the Court is that admitted
\nsignatures and disputed signatures of Mohd. Ameen are totally
\ndissimilar and the same can be observed even by a naked eye. So
\n16<\/span>
\nfar as signatures of Mohd. Akbar is concerned, it is said that the
\naccused himself had admitted that the same do not call for expert
\nopinion. I do not find any fault with the view taken by the learned
\ntrial Court and, therefore, in my view, the accused cannot derive
\nany advantage on this count calling it to be a gross irregularity in
\ndefending his cause. The judgments cited by Mr. Sethi on this
\naspect are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and,
\ntherefore, do not put the accused on any advantageous position.
\nThe statement of the accused recorded under Section 342
\nCr.P.C., also assumes importance in this regard. After the entire
\nincriminating evidence was put to him in the shape of twelve
\nquestions, he did not say a word about this receipt. From this all,
\none can simply gather that his intention was just to delay the
\nproceedings and nothing beyond that. Therefore, in my considered
\nview, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the said
\napplication on all counts.\n<\/p>\n
After re-scanning the prosecution case once again within the
\nsettled legal parameters, I hold that there is no manifest illegality or
\ngross irregularity, apparent on record, calling for the interference of
\nthis Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. I, therefore,
\nconfirm the conviction of the accused as already recorded by the
\ntrial Court and upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court.
\nAt the same time, I do not find any substance in the
\narguments advanced by Mr. Sethi with regard to extending any
\nlenient tilt vis-`-vis the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, the
\ninstant revision petition, which is pending since 1999, is primarily
\ndelayed by the accused himself, may be at one stage, it was heard
\nand reserved for orders by this Court and subsequently put for re17
\nhearing to seek some clarification on certain aspects. Delay in
\ndisposal cannot be said to be mitigating circumstance in favour of
\nthe accused especially in such type of cases.\n<\/p>\n
Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like Cancer,
\nwhich, if not detected in time, is sure to lead to the disastrous
\nconsequences. The evil of corruption has persistently crept into
\nvarious levels and this hydra-headed dragon of corruption has to be
\nlynched at the earliest, otherwise it is going to shake the socioeconomic
\nfabric.\n<\/p>\n
Taking into account the present case from all aspects, the
\nsentence already slapped upon the accused in no manner can be
\nsaid to be harsh, rather it is most adequate and, therefore, does not
\ncall for any reduction by way of lenient tilt.\n<\/p>\n
The net result is that the present revision petition fails on all
\ncounts and is, hereby, dismissed alongwith connected CMP(s).
\nLet necessary steps be taken to take the accused in custody
\nfor serving the remainder of his substantive sentence. All quarters
\nconcerned be informed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
( Virender Singh )
\nJudge
\nJammu
\n03.09.2008
\nNarinder.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At … vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. Cr Rev No. 54 OF 1999 AND Cr M P No. 166 OF 1999 Shabeer Ahmad Petitioners State of J&K Respondent !Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate ^Mrs. Shaista Hakim, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHigh Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At ... vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At ... vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-25T20:09:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At … vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-25T20:09:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4744,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008\",\"name\":\"High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At ... vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-25T20:09:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At … vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At ... vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At ... vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-25T20:09:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At … vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-25T20:09:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008"},"wordCount":4744,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008","name":"High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At ... vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-25T20:09:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/high-court-of-jammu-and-kashmir-at-vs-state-of-jk-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At … vs State Of J&K on 3 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}