IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.503 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 1, 2011 State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. -Versus- Bhagat Ram 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 For the appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : M/s R.S. Gautam, Ashok Chaudhary and Neeraj Gupta, Advocates. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 1st July, 2009, of learned Special Judge, Solan, whereby respondents Bhagat Ram, James Daniel and Satish Kumar, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 201 of the India Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, have been acquitted. 2. Prosecution’s case may be noticed. Respondent Bhagat Ram was working as Principal, while respondents James Daniel and Satish Kumar as Superintendent and Senior Assistant, respectively, in Government Senior Secondary School, Patta Mehlog, in Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the years 1999 and 2000. There was a complaint that some store items purchased for the School were missing. Respondent Bhagat Ram, in his capacity as Principal of the School, constituted a committee of four Lecturers, namely PW-3 Shri Ramji Dass, PW-4 Shri Arvind Kumar, PW-5 Shri Hari Singh Verma and PW-6 Shri Nand Lal Kaundal, for conducting physical verification of the store items. The Committee inspected the stock registers and also did physical verification of the store articles. It was found that two ceiling fans, two water filters and two daris were missing. In the meanwhile, matter came to the notice of the Enforcement Department of the State also. Inquiry was conducted and it was found that besides shortage of aforesaid three store articles, a sum of `60,000/- received by the School, for purchase of certain items, under the Black Board Scheme, which was required to be spent within one year, had remained unspent. 3. A case was formally registered against the respondents, for the shortage of the aforesaid three articles of store and also for not spending the entire amount of `60,000/- for purchase of black boards etc., within the prescribed period. 4. During the course of investigation, physical verification of the stock was carried out in Patta Mehlog School and it was found that the aforesaid articles of …3… store were short. Report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed against the respondents, after obtaining sanction from their Appointing Authorities to prosecute them, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. Respondents were charged by the trial Court with the aforesaid offences. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. 6. It appears from the cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution that one more School was under the control of respondent Bhagat Ram and respondent James Daniel, and the store articles to that School were also supplied from the items purchased for Patta Mehlog School. The other School was in village Badhani Ghat. 7. Respondents’ plea is that physical verification of the stock available in the School at Badhani Ghat having not been carried out, it cannot be said that the aforesaid articles of store were in fact missing. With regard to the allegation of not spending the amount of `60,000/-, their plea is that the amount was required to be spent within one year and this period of one year had not expired when the case was registered. 8. Learned trial Court believed the defence plea and acquitted the respondents. State has challenged the …4… judgment of the trial Court, by means of the present appeal. 9. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel representing the respondents and perused the record. 10. It stands admitted by PW-5 Shri Hari Singh Verma and PW-6 Shri Nand Lal Kaundal that stores to Badhani Ghat School also used to be supplied from Patta Mehlog School and that physical verification of the stock at Badhani Ghat School had not been carried out. Case of the prosecution is that when the verification was carried out by the abovenamed four Lecturers, under the orders of respondent Bhagat Ram, who was the Principal of Patta Mehlog School, at the relevant time, a report was prepared. That report has been withheld by the prosecution and no explanation for not producing the same has been put forward. Therefore, the presumption should be that in the report, there is no mention of misappropriation of the aforesaid articles of store, i.e. two ceiling fans, two water filters and two Daris. 11. The aforesaid witnesses, who constituted the Committee, have stated that they found that the stock register maintained in the School was not complete, because entries of all the store items, purchased for the School, did not find mention therein. The witnesses have …5… not explained that when all the store articles were not entered in the stock register, how did they come to the conclusion that the aforesaid three articles of store were short. They have not stated that they had checked the vouchers, pertaining to the purchase of all the store items. 12. It also stands admitted by PW-5 Shri Hari Singh Verma and PW-6 Shri Nand Lal Kaundal that store items required for Badhani Ghat School used to be supplied from the stores of Patta Mehlog School and that physical verification of the stores available in Badhani Ghat School had not been carried out. Investigating Officers of the case, namely PW-24 Shri Rajinder Prasad and PW-25 Shri Mast Ram have also admitted in the cross-examination that the verification of store items available in Badhani Ghat School had not been carried out. 13. As regards non-spending of the entire amount of `60,000/-, received under Black Board Scheme, suffice it to say that non-spending of money does not constitute the offence of criminal misconduct, punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act or of criminal misappropriation of Government money, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. This apart, it has …6… come in the evidence that one year had not yet lapsed when the case was registered and investigation started. In view of the abovestated 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 August 1, 2011(sd) (Rajiv Sharma), J.