IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2005. Decided on: July 25, 2011. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus J.S. Parihar & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: M/s Satyen Vaidya and M.S. Kanwar, Advocates. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 4.4.2005, of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar and others, hereinafter called accused, have been acquitted of offences, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 and Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 47, 465 and 120-B IPC, with which they were charged. 2. Accusation, which led to the trial of the respondents-accused, may be stated. Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation, a public undertaking, was allotted a site by the side of Satluj River in Rampur Sub Division of Shimla District, Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - for setting up a Hydro Power Project. In connection with the said project, the Corporation wanted to execute various civil works, which it thought of executing, by engaging various contractors. One such work was construction of 5 metres long retaining wall at Jhakri RD 15 to RD 20 metres. This work was assigned to respondent Ranjit Thakur, who was a contractor. Respondent J.S. Parihar was Executive Engineer, working with the said Corporation. He was assisted by respondent Suraj Parkash, Junior Engineer, respondent Mohan Singh, Head Draughtsman and deceased Man Mohan Sharma, AEE. 3. Allegations against the accused are that as per schedules of CPWD, the estimated cost of the work assigned to respondent Ranjit Thakur was supposed to be `40,295/-, but it was awarded for `55,834/-, with a view to causing wrongful gain to accused Ranjit Thakur by the rest of the accused and deceased Man Mohan Sharma, Assistant Extra Engineer. Finally, a sum of `52,837/- was paid to respondent Ranjit Thakur, on account of the cost of the aforesaid work, as per record maintained by the other respondents. 4. Another allegation against the respondents is that in fact entire allotted work had not been executed. In place of 5 metres long retaining wall, which was required to be constructed, only 2.5 metres long retaining wall was constructed. 5. Matter came to be reported to the Enforcement Department of the State. Case was formally registered against the respondents-accused, vide FIR Ext. PA/1. During - 3 - the course of investigation, a team of some officers from H.P. State Electricity Board, comprising, inter alia, of PW-2 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer and PW-3 R.C. Chopra, Executive Engineer, was constituted. The team visited the spot and found that retaining wall, which was there on the spot, measured only 2.5 metres in length and on the basis of this report, it was concluded by the Investigating Agency, i.e. Enforcement Department, that not only the cost of the work was over-estimated, but half of the work was executed on the spot, though payment was made for the entire work. Enforcement Department felt that it was a case of criminal conspiracy among the accused and in furtherance of that conspiracy, offence of criminal misconduct was committed by those of the respondents-accused, who were servants of Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation and the records were forged and falsified and offences, under Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, were committed. 6. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr. P.C., alongwith record, was submitted in the Court of Special Judge (Forests). After complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr. P.C., trial Court felt that a prima-facie case, under the aforesaid penal provisions of law, was made out against all the aforesaid accused. They were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and were, therefore, put on trial. 7. Prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of above named two members of the Inspecting Team, which - 4 - inspected the spot and found that only 2.5 metres long retaining wall existed on the spot. 8. Respondents took the plea that entire 5 metres long retaining wall had been constructed on the spot, but later on half of the retaining wall had to be demolished for constructing a staircase at the site of the demolished retaining wall. Learned trial Court accepted this defence plea and consequently acquitted the respondents. 9. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 10. PW-2 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer and PW-3 R.C. Chopra, Executive Engineer, the star witnesses of the prosecution, categorically admitted in their cross- examination, that at the site of the missing 2.5 metres long retaining wall, there was a staircase. In view of this cross- examination of the above named two witnesses, there could not have been any escape from accepting the defence plea that the work was executed, in full, but half of the retaining wall had to be demolished for constructing a staircase at the site of the demolished retaining wall. 11. As regards the other allegation that as per CPWD schedules, estimated cost of the work was supposed to be `40,295/- but the work was allotted for `55,834/, there is no evidence on record that the rates of CPWD were applicable at the relevant time. Rather, the evidence shows that the schedules of the CPWD were made applicable to the works of - 5 - H.P. State Electricity Board, much later, partly in the year 1997 and partly in 2000. 12. As a result of above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. July 25, 2011 (ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J.