IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 402 of 2005. Decided on: 25th July, 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. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents. : M/s. Satyen Vaidya, Ajay Kochhar and M.S. Kanwar, Advocates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral) : State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 01.04.2005, rendered by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in Corruption Case No. 7-S/7 of 2003/95, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar, Mohan Singh, Parkash Chand Sharma and Gulab Singh, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 465, 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 and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the H. P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that respondents J.S. Parihar, while working as Executive Engineer, Parkash Chand as Junior Engineer and Mohan Singh as Head Draftsman, allotted the work, namely, construction of retaining wall RD-0 to RD-15 mtrs. for transit accommodation Block No. 17 at Jhakri, Sub-head construction of retaining wall (Back side) including cutting for the bench of block No. 17 and 18 for `74495/-. PW-7 Rama Nand, Dy. S.P. 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- 1/E, on the basis of which, ruka Ex. PW-7/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 J.S. Parihar, Parkash Chand and Mohan Singh 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 and Sections 5 & 6 of the H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. Respondent Gulab Singh was charged under Sections 420, 468, 471, 465, 120-B of the Indian - 3 - Penal Code and Section 4 of the H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. They pleaded not guilty. 4. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their stand was that of denial simplicitor. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating Ex. PW-1/E and after taking into consideration the statements of material witnesses PW-1 Shri K.R. Verma and PW-11 Shri N.C. Sharma, acquitted the respondents. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case. According to him, learned Special Judge (Forest) has not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. 7. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Mr. Ajay Kochhar and Mr. M.S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the judgment dated 01.04.2005, 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 technical committee in the presence of JE/AEE/Executive Engineer concerned. The report of the technical committee is Ex. PW-1/E. 10. PW-1 Shri K.R. Verma was one of the members of the technical committee, who has submitted the report Ex. PW- 1/E. He has admitted that in the report Ex. PW-1/E, there is no - 4 - mention of slant height and its dimension which was found by the committee on the spot. He has also admitted that length of the retaining wall was found correct and no excavation was carried out on the spot and only exposed portion above natural surface level was measured. He has also admitted that excavation to the extent of one meter was entered in the measurement book and they did not find any irregularity. 11. PW-11 Shri N.C. Sharma, who was also one of the members of the technical committee, has also deposed that it could not be stated that how much portion of the retaining wall was below the natural surface level. He has also admitted that for correct measurement, the side of the retaining wall was required to be dug up. 12. It is, thus, evident that the committee members have not tried to take the measurement from below the natural surface level. PW-1 K.R. Verma has categorically stated that no excavation was carried out on the spot and only exposed portion above natural surface level was measured and how much portion of the retaining wall existed below the natural surface level was not seen. The measurement was taken on average method and actual cutting, excavation, boulder filling etc. was not taken into consideration. It was essential for the prosecution to prove that the work has not been undertaken as per the measurement book. - 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 July 25, 2011. (bhupender) - 6 -