IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 160 of 2005. Decided on: 30th May, 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. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents. : M/s. Satyen Vaidya and M.S. Kanwar, Advocates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral) : State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 01.01.2005, rendered by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in Corruption Case No. 26-S/7 of 03/94, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar, Daulat Ram and Mohan Singh, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 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 the H.P. Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983, have been acquitted. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that respondent J.S. Parihar, while working as Executive Engineer, Daulat Ram Kashyap as Junior Engineer and Mohan Singh, Head Draftsman, allotted the work for construction of Approach Road to Access Tunnel at Jhakri RD-210 to RD-375 meters for `93769/-. PW-8 Rama Nand, 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- 5/B, on the basis of which, ruka Ex.PW-8/A was sent. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was registered. The matter was investigated by the police thoroughly. The challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Respondents were charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 218, 420, 465, 468, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 & 6 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 12 witnesses. Respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their stand was that of denial simplicitor. - 3 - 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating Ex. PW-5/B and after taking into consideration the statements of material witnesses, i.e., PW-5 R.C. Chopra, PW-10 K.R. Verma, acquitted the respondents. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant 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 and Mr. M.S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the judgment dated 01.01.2005, 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 members of the technical committee on 24.09.1990 and 27.09.1990 in the presence of JE/AEE/Executive Engineer concerned. The material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution are PW-5 R.C. Chopra and PW-10 K.R. Verma. These witnesses were members of the technical committee constituted by the H.P. State Electricity Board. The committee has submitted the report Ex. PW-5/B. 10. PW-5 R.C. Chopra, who was one of the members of the technical committee, has admitted that due to natural calamities, there will be change in RD. He has admitted that the members of the committee have not seen the contour plan. He - 4 - has also admitted that once the cutting work has been done, the width found at the base is not necessarily the same as it was on the top of the streta, which has been cut. The members of the technical committee have found the width of the cutting work correct except some difference in vertical height. The members of the technical committee have not prepared any cross-sections on the spot. The profile of the spot could be ascertained only from the cross-sections. 11. PW-10 K.R. Verma, who was also one of the members of the technical committee, has deposed that the names of the persons by whom the site was identified, have not been mentioned in the report. He has also admitted that the porofile of a particular site can only be identified by way of previous cross sections and contour plan. The committee has submitted the report vide Ex. PW-5/A. There was hard rock as well as loose soil at the spot. 12. It is evident from the statement of PW-5 R.C. Chopra and PW-10 K.R. Verma that the RDs were not properly identified. They have also admitted that once the cutting work has been done, the width found at the base is not necessarily the same as it was on the top of the streta, which has been cut. They have also admitted that in order to ascertain the profile of the site, previous cross sections and contour plan were required to be considered. However, in the instant case, neither the cross sections nor contour plan were made available. The committee members have also not stated in the report Ex. PW-5/A by whom the measurement was undertaken. Though in Ex. PW- - 5 - 5/B at Sr. No. 44, the committee has shown the measurement, but no witness has stated about taking the measurement on the spot. Rather, PW-6 Naveen Malhotra has admitted that with the passage of time and other reasons, the vertical height of the cutting also change. The blasting work, which has taken place on the spot, has not been taken into consideration as per the statement of PW-5 R.C. Chopra. 13. 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 May 30, 2011. (bhupender) - 6 -