To prove the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B, IPC, it is settled that a person cannot enter into a conspiracy with himself. In this case, the other two accused stands acquitted and were not convicted, and judgment of their acquittal has attained finality. [Para No.23]
A perusal of the evidence proved by the prosecution does not prove the entrustment of the money to the convict. A person can misappropriate only that amount that is entrusted to him. Thus, to make out an offence punishable under Section 408, IPC, the foremost requirement is to prove that the property was entrusted to such person. However, there is not even an iota of evidence to prove the entrustment of alleged money to the convict-petitioner. [Para No.24]
To prove the offence of forgery punishable under Section 465, IPC, in the counter-foils which
were retained with the company, tampering had taken place, and after that, none had rechecked it. Secondly, to prove such forgery, it was essential to prove that who did it, but, in this case, handwriting specimen is not legally admissible. [Para No.25]
The counterfoils which the company retained are not proved to be tampered with by the petitioner. Consequently, the ingredients of Section 471, IPC, are also not made out. [Para No.26]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Prem Dayal
Vs.
State Of Himachal Pradesh
Decided on 12/07/2021