IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 247 of 2005. Decided on: 19th 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 18.03.2005, rendered by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in Corruption Case No. 74-S/7 of 2003/95, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar, Parkash Chand Sharma, Mohan Singh, Rakesh Gupta, Ranjeet Singh Thakur and Pankaj Manchanda, 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 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 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, Head Draftsman, allotted the work for construction of retaining wall for sludge Bed (Ist terrace) RD-0 to RD-20 mtrs. for `98670/-. 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-3/C, on the basis of which, ruka Ex. PW-7/A was sent. Thereafter, F.I.R. Ex.PA/2 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, 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. Respondents Rakesh Gupta, Ranjeet Singh Thakur and Pankaj Manchanda were charged under Sections 420, 468, 465, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section - 3 - 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 7 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-3/C and after taking into consideration the statement of material witness PW-3 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 18.03.2005, 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 on 16.01.1991 in the presence of JE/AEE/Executive Engineer concerned. The report of the technical committee is Ex. PW-3/C. 10. PW-1 Shri Naveen Kumar though was declared hostile, but he has admitted that during 1990, there was heavy damage due to natural calamities. - 4 - 11. PW-3 Shri N.C. Sharma was one of the members of the technical committee. According to him, the committee has found less slant height of the retaining wall than that entered in the measurement book. According to him, the committee has worked out excess payment of `23753.23 paise. In his cross- examination, he has stated that due to natural calamities RDs have changed. He also stated that due to heavy rains in Jhakri area, there was huge damage to the works. He has admitted that for construction of retaining wall, one has to go below the natural surface level. He further admitted that no digging was carried out to find the base of the retaining wall. According to him, the committee has taken the measurement of the retaining wall on the basis of off-set method. 12. According to the committee, the slant height of 6 mtrs. was shown in the measurement book, but it was found lesser. However, in the report of the technical committee, Ex. PW-3/C, it is nowhere stated that what was the slant height, which they had found at the spot. It was necessary for the members of the technical committee to report the exact slant height, which they have found at the spot and how it was at variance with the measurement book. The site was not identified by the accused, but the same was identified at the instance of one Shri V.L. Gupta. 13. It is, thus, evident that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. The foundation was not dug up to ascertain the exact slant height of the retaining wall. It was necessary to dug up the foundation to see the slant height. What was the exact - 5 - slant height on the spot, has not been measured by the members of the technical committee. There were natural calamities, which have damaged the property. The R.Ds. were not identified independently. The site was not disclosed by the accused, but it was disclosed by one Shri V.L. Gupta. 14. 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) - 6 -