IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.715 of 1996. Decided on: May 13, 2010. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Sita Ram & Anr. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the respondent 1: Mr B.K.Malhotra, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral) The present appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after the leave to appeal has been granted in reference to the judgment dated 29.6.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No.12-S/7 of 1995 acquitting the two alleged accused from the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(2) of the New Act 1988 the present appeal is before us for hearing. Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. In order to adjudicate the appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the prosecution case. It appears, the case was registered against two alleged accused persons, namely, Sita Ram, Junior Engineer and Ratti Ram of village Malehri, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for the alleged mis- utilization and mis-appropriation of amount allocated to the scheme, namely, a water irrigation Scheme, sanctioned in favour of the villagers of Malehri, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla in the year 1979, the estimated cost of which was Rs.13,400/-, out of which 50% was to be given by the State as subsidy through the Block Development Office and the remaining 50% was to be raised as loan by the villagers through the State Bank of India. The beneficiaries of the Scheme were certain villagers of village Malehri, who executed a power of attorney in favour of Ratti Ram as representative to execute the Scheme. The subsidy was sanctioned and the loan was made available through the bank. The alleged accused Sita Ram, Junior Engineer of the Block Development Office, was assigned the execution of the Scheme who supervised and undertook the work of the scheme. The said alleged …3… accused was charged for having constructed only two tanks out of three sanctioned water tanks and also had been alleged to have used pipe of sub-standard quality of lesser diameter and lesser length thereby alleged to have caused the loss to the tune of Rs.4914.51 paise. 3. In order to prove the its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses and whereas the alleged accused persons have denied the prosecution allegations levelled against them through their testimonies recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. The prosecution witnesses, PW-1 Atma Ram, the Naib Tehsildar of the area in question, PW-2 Sita Ram, Superintendent in the Office of BDO Theog, PW-3 O.P.Krishna, who was posted as Project Officer at the relevant time from 1978 to 1981, PW- 4 Swarana Singh, Junior Assistant, office of the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Shimla, PW-5 Roshan Lal, who is said to run the business of Hardware in the name of Shiwalayak Enterprise, PW-6 Rajinder Singh, a resident of village Malhari, PW-7 Ranjit Singh, Junior Engineer in the Office of Director of Agriculture Shimla, PW-8 Sanjay Gupta, Junior Engineer, Shimla Division No.2, PW-9 Het Ram, PW-10 Tara Chand, a resident of village Malhari, PW-11 Kubja Devi (the …4… beneficiary), PW-12 Amin Chand, Agriculture Development Officer at Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, PW-13 Gian Chand, Inspector, A/C Zone, Shimla, PW-14 Adi Ram, Dy.S.P., PW-15 Puran Sukh, Inspector, Anti Corruption Zone, Shimla, PW-16 Bhagwan Dass, Director Agriculture, Shimla, PW-17 Dr.U.S.Dixit, Assistant Director Animal Health, Shimla, PW-18 Jagdish Kumar, Inspector Enforcement, Shimla, PW-19 Kamal Narain, Dy.S.P. Vigilance and PW-20 N.C.Sood, Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla were examined as prosecution witnesses, out of whom PW-5, PW-6, PW- 10 and PW-11 were declared hostile. However, remaining prosecution witnesses in their testimonies had supported the prosecution version in a routine manner. It also appears that the prosecution witnesses and the material placed on record have been scrutinized by the trial Court and it was found that in the facts and circumstances three tanks were constructed and the pipe measuring 550 meters had been connected with those tanks. 5. Initially, there were no allegations about the construction of less number of tanks and defective quality, less length and less diameter of the pipe used in the water transportation. It appears, out of grudge and some differences that took place, therefore, after about five years such …5… allegations were made and the case was registered in the year 1979. It has also been noted that there arose some dispute regarding payment of money by Sita Ram, the alleged accused and in that regard an inquiry was also initiated where the dispute was between the villagers and Sita Ram, Junior Engineer and in that dispute it was alleged that only two tanks, instead of three tanks, were constructed. Sufficient evidences could not be brought on record to establish that the construction and utilization of material was not as per the Measurement Book and such construction anyway was damaged by utilizing sub-standard material, and the officials involved have abused their official position in collusion with the alleged beneficiaries of the village. On analysis of the material on record, prosecution witnesses, the allegations of mis-utilization of funds and use of sub-standard material were not found true, as such, the alleged accused persons / respondents have rightly been given the benefit of doubt. 6. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the accused persons / respondents beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no scope of any interference in the judgment dated 29.6.1996, passed by the learned Special Judge (Forests), …6… Shimla, therefore, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 7. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondents, are hereby discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. May 13, 2010. ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (soni)