IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2005. Decided on: May 23, 2011. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus J.S. Parihar & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Ramesh Thakur and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate Generals. For the respondents: M/s Satyen Vaidya and M.S. Kanwar, Advocates. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 2.9.2004, of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar and others, have been acquitted of offences, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 and Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, with which they were charged. 2. Accusation, which led to the trial of the respondents, may be stated. Respondent J.S. Parihar was working as Executive Engineer in Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (Division No.2), while respondents, Suraj Parkash Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - and Mohan Singh were working as Junior Engineer and Head Draughtsman, respectively, under him. Various works were got executed by the Corporation in which the above named respondents were employed. That Corporation was known as Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation. One of the works that was allegedly got executed by the aforesaid respondents was construction of GI wire crates above Power House Road between RD 3510 to 3560 (Location-II). 3. Above named respondents created false record, with regard to the execution of the aforesaid work. As per that record, work had been got executed from contractors Rakesh Gupta and Ranjit Thakur, respondents herein. As per allegedly false record, prepared by the above named respondents, who were the employees of the Corporation, cost of the work was `96,439/-, though as per schedule of quantity attached with the estimate, value of the work was supposed to be `58,584/- plus addition upto 30%, as per schedules of Punjab Public Works Department and Central Public Works Department. 4. During investigation of case FIR No.25/1990, it came to light that as a matter of fact, short work had been got executed from the above named contractors, but wrong entries had been made in the measurement books by the other respondents to cause wrongful loss to the Corporation and wrongful gain to the said contractors. 5. A report, with respect to the alleged bungling, was prepared and sent to Enforcement Department by the - 3 - Investigating Officer of case FIR No.25/90. On the basis of that report, which is Ext. PW8/A, case was formally registered; vide FIR Ext. PW8/B. During the course of investigation, a Committee comprising of Senior Officers of H.P. State Electricity Board, including PW-3 G.P.Saroch, then working as Assistant Engineer, PW-4 V.P. Gupta, Superintending Engineer and PW-23 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer, visited the spot to find out whether any work had been executed on the spot. A team of Investigating Agency also accompanied them. According to the report, respondents J.S. Parihar and Suraj Parkash were also with them, at the time of such inspection. On inspection, short work was found to have been executed on the spot. Report was prepared accordingly. Relevant portion of that report is Ext. PW3/D (para-11). 6. Specimen writings and signatures of the respondents were obtained and got compared with the documents, alleged to be false or forged. However, in view of the admission by the respondents that they had prepared the allegedly false record, including measurement books, evidence of Handwriting Expert is of no significance. Sanctions to prosecute respondents Suraj Parkash, J.S. Parihar and Mohan Singh, were obtained from their Appointing Authorities and finally report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed in the Court of Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, who after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr. P.C. and hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel as also going through the record, charged the respondents as follows: - 4 - Sr. No. Name of respondent Offences with which charges 1. Suraj Parkash Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 2. J.S. Parihar Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 3. Mohan Singh Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Specific corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 4. Rakesh Gupta Sections 420, 465, 471, 120-B and Section 4 of the H.P. prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 5. Ranjeet Thakur Sections 420, 465, 471, 120-B and Section 4 of the H.P. prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 7. As already noticed, respondents J.S. Parihar, Suraj Parkash and Mohan Singh did not deny having prepared the measurement books and having made payments to contractors Rakesh Gupta and Ranjeet Thakur. They pleaded that the work had been executed on the spot from 14.3.1990 to 28.3.1990, but there were unprecedented rains and floods, because of which some of the work of crates, executed on the spot, got washed away or sank. In support of their plea, they examined an Assistant Engineer, namely Satish Gupta DW-1, to prove report Ext. DW1/A-14 (Item No.3), pertaining to - 5 - various works, regarding damage caused by unprecedented rains and floods. As per this report (item No.3), work, in question, was damaged to the tune of `45,000/-. Total cost of the work was `96,439/-. That means, as per this report Ext. DW1/A-14, there was extensive damage to the work, in question. Learned trial Court accepted this plea of the respondents and delivered the impugned judgment and acquitted all the respondents. 8. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 9. As per report Ext. PW3/D of the Committee that carried out inspection during investigation, short work was found on the spot and an amount of `42,732/- had been paid in excess. 10. Prosecution examined three members of the Committee that inspected the spot during investigation. They are PW-3 G.P. Saroch, Executive Engineer, PW-4 V.P. Gupta, Superintending Engineer and PW-23 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer. They all testified that when they inspected the spot on 29.8.1990, some work was found on the spot. All the three witnesses admitted that in the months of March/April, there were unprecedented rains and floods in the area, which caused havoc to various works executed by Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation. 11. When there had been extensive damage to various works of Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation, damage - 6 - reports were prepared and submitted to the higher authorities. These reports were prepared much before the registration of the case or even the allegation from any quarter that work had not been executed or it had been partially executed. In respect of the work, in question, report Ext. DW/A-14 (item No.2) was submitted. As per this report, there was damage to the tune of `45,000/-, with respect to the work, in question. Report has been proved by DW-1 Satish Kumar Gupta, an Assistant Engineer of Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation. 12. Another witness of the prosecution, namely PW-2 V.L. Gupta, Assistant Engineer, employed with Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation stated, in the cross-examination, that damage was so intensive that he himself slipped, when he went to inspect the spot and broke his leg, because even at that time land on hill side had been sliding. According to report Ext. PW3/D, the amount of short executed work was `42,732/-, which is almost equal to the amount of damage that has been proved by DW-1 Satish Kumar Gupta, vide report Ext. DW1/A-14 (item No. 2). As already noticed, damage was to the tune of `85,000/-. 13. As regards the contention that the contractors Ranjit Thakur and Rakesh Gupta were paid a sum of `96,439/- against the estimated cost of `58,584/-, suffice it to say that there is no evidence in support of the allegation. Not only this, rather the evidence on record shows that the terrain being very tough and not accessible and the strata being very - 7 - loose, nobody would have been prepared to carry out the work for the amount, as calculated according to the schedules of Punjab Public Works Department and Central Public Works Department plus 30% addition to such cost. Also, it has come in the evidence that the schedules of the aforesaid departments were made applicable to the works of HPSEB much later. Some portion of the schedules was made applicable in the year 1997 and some others in the year 2000. In view of the above stated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. May 23, 2011 (ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J.