TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name of the Governor. Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy, Secretary to the Government, merely authenticated the said order of sanction which was issued in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The order of sanction was, thus, issued by the State in discharge of its statutory functions in terms of Section 19 of the Act. The order of sanction was authenticated. The said order of sanction was an executive action of a State having been issued in the name of the Governor. It was authenticated in the manner specified in the Rules of Executive Business. The authenticity of the said order has not been questioned. It was, therefore, a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-6 proved the signature of Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy. He identified his signature. He was not cross-examined on the premise that he did not know the signature of Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy. In answer to the only question put to him, he stated By the time the Secretary signed in Ex.P.17 I was in G.A.D. The Respondent, therefore, allowed the said document to be exhibited without any demur. He did not question the admissibility of the said document before the Trial Court, either when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13(3) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/-. 2. The Respondent herein was a Mandal Revenue Inspector in the office of Mandal Revenue Office, Cuddapah in the year 1994. The complainant (PW-1) was the owner of some immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of the said Mandal Office. He intended to get himself registered as a contractor with the Public Works Department wherefor a certificate as regard valuation of his property was necessary. An application to that effect was filed before the Mandal Revenue Officer (PW-3) on 01.03.1994. The Mandal Revenue Officer adopted a peculiar procedure by putting his initial thereon and handed over the same to PW-1 himself and asked him to give it to the accused. When PW1 handed over application to the accused on the same day, he is said to have asked him to present the same before the Village Administrative Officer (PW-4) and to bring cultivation accounts relating to his lands and certain statements. PW-4 thereafter recorded the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of grant of a valuation certificate cannot be treated to be a ground for disbelieving the entire prosecution case. 8. Mr. Srinivas R. Rao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the prosecution was bound to prove the order of sanction in accordance with law. The learned counsel in this behalf relied upon a decision of this Court in R.J. Singh Ahuluwalia vs. The State of Delhi [(1970) 3 SCC 451]. 9. The learned counsel would take us through the judgment of the High Court and submit that the High Court has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case in arriving at a finding that the State has not been able to prove its case against the Respondent. 10. The order of sanction dated 02.03.1995 has been produced in original. The order of sanction is a Government Order No. GOMs. No.76 dated 02.03.1995. A bare perusal of the order of sanction shows that the allegation as against the Respondent herein for taking into consideration that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, who was the competent authority to remove the said Sri K. Narasimha Chari, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Cuddapah, from the Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as regard the correctness or otherwise of the signature of the said N. Madanmohan Reddy. The authenticity of the said document was never in question. 13. The High Court relied upon a decision of this Court in Gulzar Ali vs. State of H.P. [(1998) 2 SCC 192], wherein this Court observed : It must be remembered that expert evidence regarding handwriting is not the only mode by which genuineness of a document can be established. The requirement in Section 67 of the Evidence Act is only that the handwriting must be proved to be that of the person concerned. In order to prove the identity of the handwriting any mode not forbidden by law can be resorted to. Of course, two modes are indicated by law in Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act. The former permits expert opinion to be regarded as relevant evidence and the latter permits opinion of any person acquainted with such handwriting to be regarded as relevant evidence. Those and some other provisions are subsumed under the title Opinion of third persons, when relevant . Opinions of third persons, other than those enumerated in the fasciculus of provisions, would have been irrelevant. Among the permitted opinions those mentioned in Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.1994, although a demand was said to have been made by the Respondent on 02.03.1994 in the office, presumably after office hours and then the amount of gratification was reduced from ₹ 1,000/- to ₹ 600/-. PW-1 did not make any complaint to PW-3 on the said date i.e. 03.03.1994 and even on 04.03.1994, although from the conduct of PW-1 and PW-3, it is evident that they were very close to each other. PW-3 apparently intended to help him out of way. The valuation certificate was sent to PW-3 by the Respondent on 04.03.1994 which was signed by PW-3 on the same day. It was also certified by PW-4. It is wholly unlikely that although his demand was not met, the Respondent would forward his certificate to PW-3. The natural conduct of the Respondent, if he had in fact demanded any amount by way of gratification, would have been to wait for PW-1 to meet his demand. 18. It is not in dispute that it was PW-4, who was to evaluate the property and it was PW-3 who was to grant the certificate. The Respondent was merely a recommending authority. In the aforementioned situation, the High Court has arrived at the following findings : The evidence on record in this case discloses that Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
