JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 16.02.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Anti-Corruption) Jammu whereby the appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 & 471 RPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under each of the above four Sections. Period of imprisonment in all the offences has been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The impugned judgment dated 16.02.2006 has been challenged by the appellant on the following grounds:-

That the impugned judgment is against the facts of the case and the accepted principles of law.

That the prosecution had alleged the tampering of the flight coupon (EXPW-JP/l) by way of forgery against the appellant herein in the challan. It was alleged that on 19.11.1997, the appellant was operating the ticket sale counter at Jammu Airport when he committed the said criminal act. In order to prove this allegation, the prosecution had placed on record the log book of the Jammu Airport allegedly containing the duty schedule of the various employees including the appellant. The said log book was in the shape of a carbon copy only. The contention of the defense is that the said carbon copy is not an admissible piece of evidence particularly when the 1.O. had made no effort to seize the original log book and had not cited Sh. S.Z. Ali, the scribe thereof, as a witness in the case, has been accepted by the learned Trial Court and no reliance has been placed on the said carbon copy of the log book. Similarly, the learned Trial Court has also refused to accept the carbon copy of pay-in-slip as evidence to prove the duty of the appellant at ticket sale counter of Jammu Airport on19.11.1997 observing that the same has not been even shown in the court to PW- Ashok Kumar Koul or for that matter to any other witness. Therefore, though the leaned Trial Court did not place any reliance on these two documents for the purpose of proving the duty of the appellant at the ticket sale counter of Jammu Airport on19.11.199, yet he adopted a novel approach of the appreciation of evidence and held the appellant guilty of the offences mentioned above. Even in his examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the appellant was not put any question regarding his duty at the ticket sale counter of Jammu Airport on 19.11.1997.

That the learned trial Court has further committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PW-J.P. Jaiswar for the purpose of identification of the handwriting/signatures of the appellant on the audit coupon (EXPW-JP) and the flight coupon ((EXPW-JP/1) and holding that the appellant had prepared both these coupons.

That the learned Trial Count has wrongly held that the appellant has not challenged the said witnesses, i.e., PW J.P. Jaiswar and PW-Kewal Krishan in their cross- examinations with respect to their acquaintance character. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof in a criminal ease always lies on the prosecution unless a statute prescribes otherwise. But in the present case, the learned Trial Court has opined at page 7 of the judgment that the burden of proof lies heavily on the accused. In the present case, when these prosecution witnesses had not deposed anything regarding one or the other of the manners prescribed under Section 47 of the Evidence Act in which they were claiming to be acquainted with the signature/handwriting of the appellant, there was absolutely no necessity or requirement under law for the appellant to put any question to the effect to those witnesses. Otherwise also, if the cross-examination of these prosecution witnesses are read in between the lines, it will be found that they have been sufficiently cross-examined on this aspect as a matter of fact. The judgment of the learned Trial Court is bad on this