IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2005. Decided on: May 23, 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 and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate Generals. 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 12.10.2004, of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar and others, 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, 471 and 120-B IPC, with which they were charged. 2. Accusation, which led to the trial of the respondents, may be stated. Respondent J.S. Parihar was working as Executive Engineer in Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (Division No.2), while respondents Daulat Ram Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - and Mohan Singh were working as Junior Engineer and Head Draughtsman, respectively, under him. Various works were got executed by the Corporation in which the above named respondents were employed. That Corporation was known as Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation. One of the works that was allegedly got executed by the aforesaid respondents was stabilization of slopes along Gharolla Nullah, construction of G.I. wire crates between RD 400 to 450 (Location No.II). 3. Above named respondents created false record, with regard to the execution of the aforesaid work. As per that record, work had been got executed from Partap Singh and Parekash Chand, Contractors. As per allegedly false record, prepared by the above named respondents, who were the employees of the Corporation, cost of the work was `98,863/-, though as per schedules of quantity attached with the estimate, value of the work was supposed to be `61,273/- plus addition upto 30%, as per schedules of Punjab Public Works Department and Central Public Works Department. 4. During investigation of case FIR No.25/1990, it came to light that as a matter of fact, no work had been got executed by respondent J.S. Parihar and his above named subordinates from the above named contractors, but wrong entries had been made in the measurement books to cause wrongful loss to the Corporation and wrongful gain to the said contractors. 5. A report, with respect to the alleged bungling, was prepared and sent to Enforcement Department by the - 3 - Investigating Officer of case FIR No.25/90. On the basis of that report which is Ext. PW20/A, case was formally registered, vide FIR Ext. PA/1. During the course of investigation, a Committee comprising of Senior Officers of H.P. State Electricity Board, including PW-4 V.P. Gupta, then working as Assistant Engineer, PW-6 G.P. Saroch, Executive Engineer and PW-7 Khushi Ram Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts, visited the spot to find out whether any work had been executed on the spot. A team of Investigating Agency also accompanied them. According to the report, respondents J.S. Parihar and Daulat Ram were also with them, at the time of such inspection. On inspection, no work was found to have been executed on the spot. Report was prepared accordingly. Relevant portion of that report is Ext. PW4/B. 6. Specimen writings and signatures of the respondents were obtained and got compared with the documents, alleged to be false or forged. However, in view of the admission by the respondents that they had prepared the allegedly false record, including measurement books, evidence of Handwriting Expert is of no significance. Sanctions to prosecute respondents Daulat Ram, J.S. Parihar and Mohan Singh, were obtained from their Appointing Authorities and finally report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed in the Court of Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, who after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr. P.C. and hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel as also going through the record, charged the respondents as follows: - 4 - Sr. No. Name of respondent Offences with which charges 1. Daulat Ram 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 2. J.S. Parihar 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 3. Mohan Singh 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Specific corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 4. Pratap Singh Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 4 of the Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 5. Parkash Chand Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 4 of the Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 7. As already noticed, respondents J.S. Parihar, and Daulat Ram did not deny having prepared the measurement books and having made payments to the other respondents. They pleaded that the work had been executed on the spot from 25.2.1990 to 20.3.1990, but there were unprecedented rains and floods, because of which the entire work of crates, executed on the spot, got washed away or sank. In support of their plea they examined an Assistant Engineer, namely Satish Kumar DW-1, to prove report Ext. DW1/A-13 (Item No.5), pertaining to various works, regarding damage caused by unprecedented rains and floods. As per this report (item No.5), work, in question, was damaged to the tune of - 5 - `90,000/-. Total cost of the work was `98,863/-. That means, as per this report Ext. DW1/A-13, there was almost complete damage to the work, in question. Learned trial Court accepted this plea of the respondents and delivered the impugned judgment and acquitted all the respondents. 8. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 9. Three members of the Committee that inspected the spot during investigation and reported that no work had been executed, were examined by the prosecution. They are PW-4 V.P. Gupta, then working as Assistant Engineer, PW-7 Khushi Ram Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer and PW-6 G.P. Saroch, Executive Engineer. They all testified that when they inspected the spot on 30.8.1990, no sign of work, in question, was found. All the three witnesses admitted that in the months of March/April, there were unprecedented rains and floods in the area, which caused havoc to various works executed by Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation. When questioned as to how did they identify the sites, they stated that the sites were identified by respondents J.S. Parihar, Executive Engineer and Daulat Ram, Junior Engineer, who were accompanying them. However, in their report, there is no mention if the sites were identified by these respondents nor is the report signed by these two respondents, in token of their having identified the sites or in token of their being with the Committee members, at the time of inspection. These - 6 - respondents denied that they were with the Committee Members at the time of alleged inspection. 10. Another witness of the prosecution, namely PW-5 V.L. Gupta, Assistant Engineer, employed with Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation, stated, in the cross-examination, that some time in the month of March, 1990, he visited the spot, after there had been heavy damage due to rains and flooding of the area and that he found that the entire area had slided and sliding was still continuing, when he went to the spot. He stated that sliding was so intense that he slipped and broke his leg. 11. Report of damage Ext. DW1/A-13 (Item No.5), which was prepared much before the registration of the case, also shows that there was almost complete damage to the work, in question, because loss had been estimated at `90,000/- . Total cost of work was `98,863/-. 12. As regards the contention that the above named contractors were paid a sum of `98,863/- against the estimated cost of `61,273/- suffice it to say that there is no evidence in support of the allegation. Not only this, rather the evidence on record shows that the terrain being very tough and not accessible and the strata being very loose, nobody would have been prepared to carry out the work for the amount, as calculated according to the schedules of Punjab Public Works Department and Central Public Works Department plus 30% addition to such cost. Also, it has come in the evidence that the schedules of the aforesaid - 7 - departments were made applicable to the works of HPSEB much later. Some portion of the schedules was made applicable in the year 1997 and some others in the year 2000. In view of the above stated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh ), J. May 23, 2011 (ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J.