IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 176 of 2005. Decided on: 31st May, 2011. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- J.S. Parihar and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents. : M/s. Satyen Vaidya and M.S. Kanwar, Advocates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral) : State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 01.01.2005, rendered by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in Corruption Case No. 88-S/7 of 2003/96 whereby respondents J.S. Parihar, Daulat Ram and Mohan Singh, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that respondent J.S. Parihar, while working as Executive Engineer, Daulat Ram as Junior Engineer and Mohan Singh, Head 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Draftsman, allotted the work for construction of approach road to access tunnel RD-210 to RD-375 meters, Sub-head cutting of road RD-255 to RD-270 meters at Jhakri for `96600/-. PW-5 Rama Nand, while investigating F.I.R. No. 25/90, noticed certain irregularities in the work of Jhakri Division. He has requested the superior officers for constituting a technical committee to look into the matter. Consequently, the H.P. State Electricity Board constituted a technical committee to detect the irregularities committed during the execution of work in Jhakri Division. The committee submitted its report Ex. PW-2/A, on the basis of which, ruka Ex. PW-5/A was sent. Thereafter, F.I.R. Ex. PA/1 was registered. The matter was investigated by the police thoroughly. The challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Respondents were charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 218, 468, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty. 4. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 8 witnesses. Respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their stand was that of denial simpliciter. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating Ex. PW-2/A and after taking into consideration the statement of PW-2 R.C. Chopra, acquitted the respondents. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved - 3 - its case. According to him, learned Special Judge (Forest) has not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. 7. Mr. Satyen Vaidya and Mr. M.S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the judgment dated 01.01.2005, passed by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record meticulously. 9. The site was inspected by the members of the technical in the presence of JE/AEE/Executive Engineer concerned. The material witness relied upon by the prosecution is PW-2 R.C. Chopra. 10. PW-2 R.C. Chopra, who was one of the members of the technical committee, has deposed that when the committee visited the spot, it found less work on the spot. The report of the committee is Ex. PW-2/A. According to him, the committee has not mentioned the name of the official by whom the spot was identified. He has also admitted that damage was caused to the project area during December, 1990. According to him, the exact profile of the area before starting the work after completion of the work can only be ascertained after taking into consideration the contours and cross-sections of the area. He has also admitted that after completion of the road, the blasting work cannot be ascertained. 11. PW-3 Prem Chand, Surveyor, who was associated in the preparation of site plan Ex. PW-1/A was declared hostile. He - 4 - has admitted in his cross-examination that re-production of the measurement of that height which was mentioned in the original plan is not appearing on the blue print. 12. What emerges from the statement of PW-2 R.C. Chopra, is that the contours and cross-sections were not taken into consideration by the members of the technical committee during inspection to ascertain the earlier profile of the land before cutting work was started. He has also admitted that extensive damage was caused in December, 1990. PW-3 Prem Chand, Surveyor has been declared hostile, as noticed above. Similarly, PW-6 Dev Dutt Sharma has also stated that he has not taken into consideration the earlier contour plans and cross- sections to ascertain the earlier profile of the site. The committee has noticed at Sr. No. 45 of Ex. PW-2/A the variation in the back height which was found 6.35 meters against 10 meters as per entry in the measurement book. PW-2 R.C. Chopra and PW- 3 Prem Chand have deposed that after the completion of the cutting, the back height cannot be ascertained unless earlier contour and cross-sections are taken into consideration. PW-6 Dev Dutt Sharma has also admitted in cross-examination that the RDs were not got identified independently by him as the same were fixed on the spot. He also came to know that entire Jhakri area was lashed by heavy rains in March-April, 1990, but he did not investigate how much damage had been caused. He has also visited the spot with the technical committee, but he did not remember by whom the site was identified. - 5 - 13. In view of the abovestated position, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), Judge (Rajiv Sharma), Judge May 31, 2011. (bhupender) - 6 -