IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 396 of 2005. Decided on: 19th July, 2011. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Partap Singh 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 05.04.2005, rendered by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in Corruption Case No. 16-S/7 of 2003/95, whereby respondents Partap Singh, J.S. Parihar, Prem Chand Thakur and Mohan 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 Sections 4, 5 & 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 respondent J.S. Parihar, while working as Executive Engineer, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Prem Chand Thakur as Junior Engineer and Mohan Singh, Head Draftsman allotted the work, namely, ‘Construction of 24’/36’ wide Approach Road to Power House Site RD-2000 to 3155 mtrs. Sub-head, construction of retaining wall RD-2160 to RD-2170 mtrs. for `72422/-. PW-1 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-1/4, on the basis of which, ruka Ex. PW-1/5 was sent. Thereafter, F.I.R. Ex.PW-1/6 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, Prem Chand and Mohan Singh, were charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 468, 465, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 & 6 of the H.P. Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. Respondent Partap Singh was charged under Sections 420, 468, 465, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the H.P. Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. They pleaded not guilty. 4. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Respondents were also - 3 - 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-1/4 and after taking into consideration the statements of material witnesses PW-2 Shri V.P. Gupta and PW-4 Shri K.R. Verma, 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 05.04.2005, 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-1/4. 10. PW-2 Shri V.P. Gupta was one of the members of the technical committee. He has admitted in his cross- examination that though digging work was undertaken to locate the foundation, but he could not state what was the depth. He further testified that in order to know the width of the retaining wall, digging has to be done, but in the instant case, no digging was done on the sides of the retaining wall. - 4 - 11. PW-4 Shri K.R. Verma was also one of the members of the technical committee. He has also admitted that base width of the retaining wall could not be ascertained without resorting to digging and excavation. He has also admitted that in order to ascertain the height of the retaining wall, it was required to be measured from the PCC level to the top. Thus, it is evident that the members of the technical committee, PW-2 Shri V.P. Gupta and PW-4 Shri K.R. Verma have not taken efforts to measure the retaining wall from below the natural surface level. They had admitted that for construction of retaining wall, one has to go below the natural surface level. According to them, the slant height of the retaining wall recorded in the measurement book was 8.02 mtrs., but they have not disclosed what was the slant height found by the committee on the spot. PW-2 has also admitted that the margin of error is highest in off-set method. It is, thus, evident that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. What was the exact slant height on the spot, has not been measured by the members of the technical committee. 12. 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 19, 2011. (bhupender) - 5 - - 6 -