Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 1275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIM LA
Before (Division Bench)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Cr. Appeal No.3 and 277 of 2006 Decided on: March 11, 2011
S.M. Katwal Vs. State of HP State of H.P. Vs. S.M. Katwal
For the Respondent(s):M/s Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Ramesh Thakur, Assistant A.G. in appeal No.3 of 2006 and M/s N.K. Thakur and Jagdish Thakur, Advocates in appeal No. 277 of 2006.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the commission of forgery by the accused to favor a candidate, leading to the violation of Constitutional provisions and fundamental rights of citizens, resulting in the court's decision to uphold the conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and set aside the conviction under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
Corruption - Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 218, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC - [Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 218, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC] - The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, set aside the conviction under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 218 and 465 IPC. The court found that the accused committed forgery to favor a candidate, violating Constitutional provisions and fundamental rights of citizens. The appeal for enhancement of punishment was dismissed due to the age and sickness of the accused's wife.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, S.M. Katwal, was convicted for offenses under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 218, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The case involved the accused's involvement in changing marks to favor candidates for public posts, leading to his conviction and sentencing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of committing forgery to favor a candidate, violating Constitutional provisions and fundamental rights of citizens. The court upheld the conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, set aside the conviction under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 218 and 465 IPC.
Issues: The issues involved the accused's involvement in changing marks to favor candidates for public posts, the violation of Constitutional provisions and fundamental rights of citizens, and the appeal for enhancement of punishment by the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence of forgery committed by the accused to favor a candidate, leading to the violation of Constitutional provisions and fundamental rights of citizens. The court upheld the conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, set aside the conviction under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 218 and 465 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the accused was partly accepted, setting aside the conviction and sentence for certain offenses, while maintaining the conviction and sentence under other sections. The appeal filed by the State for enhancement of punishment was dismissed due to the age and sickness of the accused's wife.
Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) By means of this judgment, two appeals, one filed by convict S.M. Katwal, which is Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2006, and the other filed by State of H.P. for enhancement of punishment, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2006, are being disposed of, as both of them arise out of the same judgment, i.e. judgment dated 31.12.2005, of learned Special Jude, Hamirpur.
2. Appeal No. 3 of 2006 has been filed by S.M. Katwal, hereinafter referred to as accused. He has challenged his conviction for offences, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 218, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and also the sentences of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of ‘10,000/, for offence under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of ‘1000/- for each of the remaining offences. Cr. Appeal No. 277 of 2006 has been filed by the State for enhancement of punishment for all the offences of which accused S.M. Katwal has been convicted.
3.Case of the prosecution, per evidence adduced during the course of trial is like this. Accused S.M. Katwal was appointed as Chairman of Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short Board) in the year 1999. Main function of the Board was to select subordinate staff for appointment in various departments of the Government of H.P. In the year 2000, there were 214 vacancies of Vidya Upasaks (a category of teachers), which were to be filled from amongst the residents of Karsog Sub Division in Mandi District. Posts were advertised. There were more than three thousand candidates for those 214 posts. The Board, probably for the convenience of the candidates, conducted the written test as also the viva-voce test at the headquarters of Karsog Sub Division itself. Initially, a written test was conducted and after the answer sheets had been evaluated, viva-voce test was held from 23.6.2000 to 27.6.2000. Lists, indicating the names, marks obtained in written test and marks obtained in viva-voce test were prepared, which are Exts. P-97 to P-100, Exts. P-102 to 105, Exts. P-107 to 111, Exts. 113 to 116, Exts. 118 to 121, Ext. P-123, Exts. P-125 to 128, Exts. 130 to 132, Exts. 134 to 137 and Exts. 138 to 145. Proceedings of selection were also drawn, on conclusion of viva voce test & such proceeding on the basis of those lists, consisting of eight sheets, are Ext. P-138 to P-145.
4. Accused, it appears, was appointee of the Government of one political party, which got defeated at the hustings in the year 2003. New Government of rival political party took over on 6.3.2003. On the very next day, Secretary (Home) wrote to the Inspector General (Enforcement) that record of the Board, pertaining to selection of candidates for various categories, was likely to be destroyed and, therefore, action should be taken, at once, to ensure that no such destruction took place. On 8.3.2003, a police party, headed by DIG namely, Shri Jagjit Gupta, rushed to the office of Board at Hamirpur. Record was sealed. Thereafter record was scanned and it was found that marks awarded to some of the candidates in viva-voce test had been increased by over-writing in lists Exts. P-97 to P-100, Exts. P-102 to 105, Exts. P-107 to 111, Exts. 113 to 116, Exts. 118 to 121, Ext. P-123, Exts. P-125 to 128, Exts. 130 to 132 & Exts. 134 to 137, with a view to including such candidates in the list of selected candidates.
5. Matter was investigated. Lists were sent to Government Examiner of Question Documents, who vide report Ext. PW18/E, opined that viva-voce marks of five candidates, namely Satish Kumar, Prem Lal, Roshani Devi, Netar Singh and Swayam Prakash Sharma, had been increased by over writing. Similarly, Handwriting Expert, namely PW-18 Dr. Minakshi Mahajan, opined that marks awarded to Zalam Singh in viva-voce test as also the aggregate of his marks, i.e. marks secured in written test and viva-voce test, had been changed in the aforesaid lists Exts. P-97 to P-100,
