IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.170 of 2003. Date of Decision: 23.12.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus. Badri Singh and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents. : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment of Special Judge, Kullu acquitting the respondents for offences under Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The charge against the accused framed by the learned trial Court is specific, namely, (a) that fake tenders were invited (b) that the recipient of the benefit contractor Sh. Rajinder Pal-respondent No.5 was assisted by the other accused by transporting his bulldozer to the place where the contract was to be executed. The bulldozer was carried in a Government vehicle to Udaipur in order to grant an unfair Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 advantage to him. The State of Himachal Pradesh has been cheated for a sum of Rs.1,60,961/-. 3. This is one case where the prosecution relies upon the number of witnesses to prove its case without paying any attention to the quality of the evidence. 4. The learned trial court on the evidence on record acquitted all the accused holding that the witness produced by the prosecution PW1 Sh. S.S.Juneja, who proved assessment report Ext. PW1/A along with explanations Exts.PW1/C, PW1/D and PW1/E, could not establish the loss which has been sustained by the State. The court also holds that the prosecution also produced PW2 Sh. P.C. Anand, who denied that he was known by the name of Parkash Chand Anand and does not know who this person is. His evidence was required to be considered on the aspect of fake tenders of Prakash Chand Anand being considered for evaluation. On the assessment of the loss the court holds that although a bill for Rs.4,92,815.15 paise has been raised by the accused contractor, a payment of only Rs.2,95,020/- has been made. In these circumstances, there is no question of causing any loss to the State. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General urges that the evidence on record is crystal clear on the aspect of the involvement of all the accused in conspiring to cause wrongful loss to the State and illegal gain to the Contractor Rajinder Pal. She emphasis that the evidence of PW1 Sh. S.S.Juneja is 3 clear and when considered to this report, there is no doubt that the respondents are guilty of the offences as charged. 6. Adverting to this aspect of the case, the evidence of PW1 Sh.S.S.Juneja may be considered. He has submitted his report Ext.PW1/A but then in his cross examination he demolishes the entire case of the prosecution. He says that he has made the calculations of the rates on the basis of works to be executed at Solan without in any manner considering the topography or the nature of work to be executed. In this context, he admits that the rates were dependent upon whether the machinery supplied was new or old one. He did not check that which bulldozer was engaged for the work subject matter of this case. More important he states: “I cannot say whether any wrongful loss was caused to the State by act of the accused. Whatever I found I have mentioned in my report. It was not my terms of reference to conclude whether wrongful loss was caused to the State by the accused. I cannot say even today whether wrongful loss was caused to the State. For coming to such conclusion the matter requires to be gone through from top to bottom.” 7. This admission on his part should and ought to be sufficient to establishing that no loss caused to the State. as alleged has been established on the record of the case. 8. Adverting to the first part of the charge with respect to the transportation of the bulldozer to Udaipur through the Government vehicle in breach of all norms, I do not find even an iota of evidence on the record to establish this fact. On the other aspect that fictitious tenders were 4 obtained, the learned trial Court holds and rightly so that Parkash Chand Anand has not been produced as a witness but only one P.C.Anand who admits that he is not Prakash Chand. It was for the prosecution to have proved by evidence on record to establish that the wrongful gain caused to the contractor was the result of concerted efforts on behalf of all the accused to defraud the State exchequer. The conclusion of the trial Court that out of the final bill only a sum of Rs. 2,95,020/- has been paid is not disputed. In case there is a dispute with respect to the rates etc., if there is a dispute of a civil nature between the parties, it cannot be a subject matter of criminal proceedings. 9. In these circumstances, I hold that there is no perversity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The mere fact that number of witnesses have been produced on record does not prove the case of the prosecution. The main witness PW1 S.S.Juneja does not establish the case of the prosecution. The other witness Sh. Parkash Chand Anand has not been produced in Court by the prosecution. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. December 23, 2010(R)