IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2002. Date of decision: March 3, 2011. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Kanshi Ram …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge, J. (oral) . In this appeal, State has challenged the judgement of acquittal dated 20.6.2002 rendered by Special Judge, Bilaspur, whereby respondent Kanshi Ram, who alongwith one Jodh Singh (now dead), was tried for offences, under Sections 409, 120-B, 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been acquitted. 2. Respondent was the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Kotla (District Bilaspur) in the year 1991. An estimate for adding a storey to the Panchayat Bhawan, consisting of two rooms, a kitchen and a stair case was prepared. The estimated value of the work was Rs.41,000/ Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… and odds. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was initially sanctioned by the Panchayat by passing a resolution. The respondent was authorized to withdraw and utilize the money for the aforesaid work. He withdrew Rs.15,000/- on 29.4.1991, Rs.5000/- on 12.7.1991 and Rs.3000/- together with bank interest amounting to Rs.2043/- on 19.8.1991. However, no entry in the books of account maintained by the Panchayat Secretary, namely Jodh Singh (now dead) had been made. Later on, an entry was made in the record of Panchayat, showing expenditure of Rs.34,277.87 on the aforesaid work of addition to the Panchayat Bhawan. 3. Panchayat also sanctioned another project i.e. construction of shops/ stalls at a cost of Rs.50,000/- and the respondent was authorized to carry out the work by withdrawing the money from the bank. He withdrew Rs.20,000/- on 27.9.1991. He did not spend any money on the construction of shops/ stalls. He handed over the charge of the office of Pradhan of the Panchayat to PW 1 Babu Ram in the year 1992. PW 1 Babu Ram examined the account books and found that respondent had not accounted for Rs.20,000/-, which he had withdrawn for construction of the shops/ stalls. He also noticed that there was an audit objection to this effect. 4. Matter came to be reported to the police. Investigation was carried out. It was revealed that only a sum of Rs. 21,600/- had been spent on addition of a floor to the Panchayat Bhawan, but in the record, a sum of Rs. 34,277/- was shown to have been spent on it. As regards shops and stalls, the investigation revealed that only foundation had been laid and that too without use of cement and …3… there was thus misappropriation of withdrawn amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of this work. Specimen signatures of the respondent were taken to compare the same with the signatures on bank documents pertaining to the withdrawal of money. Specimen signatures and the bank papers were sent to the handwriting expert PW 11 M.L.Sharma, who gave the opinion that signatures on the bank papers tallied with the specimen signatures of the respondent. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., alongwith relevant papers was filed in the court of Special Judge, who after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charged the respondent with offences under Sections 409 read with 120-B, 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge and was therefore, tried for the aforesaid offences. 5. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses to bring the charge home to the respondent. Respondent did not deny having withdrawn the money for the aforesaid two works, but pleaded that entire money had been spent on the works and that on the work regarding addition of a floor to the Panchayat Bhawan, an additional amount of Rs.8,000/- provided by the Chairman of Panchayat Block Samiti, had also been spent. Learned trial court has accepted the defence plea and acquitted the respondent. 6. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. It is the case of the prosecution itself that addition to the Panchayat Ghar had been carried out as per approval accorded by the …4… Panchayat, i.e. to say the entire structure required to be added had been added. The estimated cost of the structure before it was started was worked out to be more than Rs.40,000/-. This fact is also not denied. After the work had been executed, a Junior Engineer employed in Block Development Office, namely DW 1 Sukh Ram Kaushal, made assessment, and as per his evaluation report and details of expenditure Ex. DA and Ex. DB, respectively, a sum of Rs.31,750/- had already been spent and work of stair was still in progress, which required expenditure of another sum of Rs.3,000/- approximately. As per Panchayat record, a sum of Rs. 34,278/- had been spent on the entire work. 7. Prosecution relies upon the testimony of PW 3 Kuldip Sain, Junior Engineer with Public Works Department, who was required to evaluate the cost of construction during investigation. The witness submitted report Ex. PW 3/A, per which only a sum of Rs. 21,600/- was the estimated value of the addition. The witness in his cross-examination stated that he evaluated the work as per norms pertaining to execution of governmental works and that when such works are executed by an agency other than a governmental agency or a private person, expenditure is higher. The witness thus himself concedes that he has not evaluated the addition taking the same to be by a private person, i.e. the respondent. Also, the witness stated that he evaluated the work according to the schedule of 1987, though the work was executed in the year 1991. 8. As regards the second work i.e. construction of shops and stalls, the estimated cost of the shops at the time of approval of the …5… project was Rs.50,000/-. Prosecution case is self contradictory. Some of the witnesses say that no work had been executed on the spot nor was there any material available on the spot. But some other witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, say that foundation had been laid and some material was also there. PW 10 R.L.Sood Dy. S.P. who visited the spot stated that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW 10/B. In the site plan, there is a note, i.e. Note No. 2, to the effect that foundation on the spot had been filled. However, while in the witness box initially he stated in the examination-in-chief that foundation had been filled, but in the cross-examination, he denied it and stated that the marginal note as aforesaid had been incorrectly recorded in his site plan. This is the standard of the investigation, carried out by a Dy. S.P. of Vigilance Department. We direct the Assistant Advocate General to bring the fact to the notice of Principal Secretary to the Government of the concerned department. 9. PW 1 Sh. Babu Ram, who succeeded the respondent in office as Pradhan of the Panchayat, stated that foundation had been raised on the spot, but no cement was used. He admitted that few bricks were there on the spot. However, PW 10 R.L.Sood, Investigating Officer stated that a stack of bricks was there and some Bajri was also there. 10. Respondent took the plea that he had spent the entire amount of Rs.20,000/- on purchase of material and laying of foundations and submitted vouchers regarding expenditure to the Secretary Sh. Jodh Singh. He examined the present Panchayat Secretary, namely DW 3 Jasbir Singh, who produced vouchers …6… Exts. DD, DE, DF, DG and DH from the Panchayat record and stated that the same were available in the record of the Panchayat, when he took over the charge from his predecessor. As per these vouchers, a sum of Rs. 1980 had been spent on purchase of 20 bags of cement on 10.11.1991, a sum of Rs.1450/- had been paid on account of leveling of the plot and digging of the foundation for the shops, a sum of Rs.4090/- had been spent on purchase of sand, aggregate, stones and earth and also as labour charges for chiselling stones and Rs.12,500/- had been spent on purchase of 10000 bricks. 11. In view of above stated position, we see no reason to interfere with the judgement of acquittal, passed by the trial court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), Judge. March 3, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.