9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eventually cancelled by another application dated 11.7.1960. The petitioner issued sale notes as and when required in the name of Mohammed Yusuf, thereby knowingly forged the document and used the same for avoiding payment of excise duties. These are broad facts on which charges under sections 458 and 471 I.P.C. and also section 9 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were framed against the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty, but he was convicted by the trial court and his appeal before the Sessions Judge, Indore also failed. Now, he has come in revision before this court. Except for the dates of issuance of sale notes, the prosecution case remains unchanged in its essence. The witnesses are also the same. The defence is also the same. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cence, could not have remembered the applicants, decades after they were made. 6. With pointed reference to Ex. P.1, the application Ex. P.2., the licence Ex. P.4 and the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, the learned Counsel contended that these witnesses in absence of any material endorsement as regards presentation of the application, could not have remembered as to who presented the application Ex.P.2 unless they were gifted with some superhuman memory. Now, this criticism needs to be probed into Ex. P.I, which is an application for cancellation addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Indore, purported to have been made by Mohammed Yusuf on 11.7.1960, does not bear any endorsement as to who presented it. Similarly Ex. P.2 the licence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng permits on behalf of others, he could remember and recognise him, the question again is not of recognising him, but whether it was he who had presented these documents in the name of Mohammed Yusuf, and if that was so, public servant such as P.W.3 would permit him to impersonate Mohammed Yusuf and yet knowingly issue a permit; if he does so, he would be undoubtedly betraying his own duty. The claim made by the public servant that he had in fact inspected the business premises stands fully betrayed by his conduct. There has been no honest approach either in the issuance of such permit and even in the subsequent investigation. At this stage, evidence of the handwriting expert may also be considered. In order to give an opinion, the expert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f documents as to who signed it. There are innumerable inconsistencies and contradictions in his statement which render his testimony wholly unreliable. He pleaded ignorance about the writing in P.4 and on mere guessing concluded that it appeared to have been written by the accused. He admits that the whereabouts of Mohammed Yusuf were not enquired even while issuing a certificate on P.2. He did not bother to ascertain the identity of the licence holder and yet issued a certificate. This dishonest conduct on his part itself destroys his testimony although the witness has admitted that he used to inspect the shop, but he never went to inspect the shop of Mohammed Yusuf. This witness is not merely self contradicted but self condemned as well. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
