IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2004. Decided on: May 17, 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. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. 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 3.9.2004, of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondents Daulat Ram 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 Man Mohan Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - Sharma (now dead), Suraj Prakash and Mohan Singh were working as Assistant Engineer, 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 laying wire crates, seventy-eight in number, in 15 metres length. 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 a firm named and styled M/s Shimla Hills Contractors of which respondents Pratap Singh and Devi Singh were the partners. As per allegedly false record, prepared by the above named respondents, who were the employees of the Corporation, cost of the work was `95,692/-, though as per schedule of quantity attached with the estimate, value of the work was supposed to be `57669/- 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, no work had been got executed by respondent J.S. Parihar and his above named subordinates from the aforesaid firm M/s Shimla Hills Contractors, but wrong entries had been made in the - 3 - measurement books to cause wrongful loss to the Corporation and wrongful gain to the aforesaid firm M/s Shimla Hills Contractors. 5. A report, with respect to the alleged bungling, was prepared and sent to Enforcement Department by the Investigating Officer of case FIR No.25/90. On the basis of that report which is Ext. PW2/A, case was formally registered, vide FIR Ext. PW2/B. During the course of investigation, a Committee comprising of Senior Officers of H.P. State Electricity Board, including PW-1 Khushi Ram Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer and PW-17 G.P. Saroch, Executive Engineer (Civil), 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 Prakash were also with them, at the time of such inspection. On inspection, no work was found to have been executed on the spot. Report was prepared accordingly. Relevant extract of that report is Ext. PW1/B (para-12). 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 Prakash, J.S. Parihar and deceased Manmohan Sharma, were obtained from their - 4 - 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: Sr. No. Name of respondent Offences with which charges 1. Suraj Prakash 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. Pratap Thakur Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 4 of the Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 5. Devi Singh Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 4 of the Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 7. As already noticed, respondents J.S. Parihar, Suraj Prakash and Mohan Singh did not deny having prepared the measurement books and having made payments to the other respondents. 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 the entire - 5 - work of crates, executed on the spot, got washed away or sank. In support of their plea they examined an Assistant Engineer, namely Satish Kumar DW-1, to prove report Ext. DW1/A-14 (Item No.5), pertaining to various works, regarding damage caused by unprecedented rains and floods. As per this report (item No.5), work, in question, was damaged to the tune of `90,000/-. Total cost of the work was `95,692/-. That means, as per this report Ext. DW1/A-14, there was complete 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. Two members of the Committee that inspected the spot during investigation and reported that no work had been executed, were examined by the prosecution. They are, PW-1 Khushi Ram Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer and PW- 17 G.P. Saroch, Executive Engineer. They testified that when they inspected the spot on 29.8.1990, no sign of work, in question, was found. Both of them 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. When questioned as to how did they identify the sites, they stated that the sites were identified by respondents J.S. Parihar, - 6 - Executive Engineer and Suraj Prakash, Junior Engineer, who were accompanying them. However, in their report, there is no mention if the sites were identified by these respondents nor is the report signed by these two respondents, in token of their having identified the sites or in token of their being with the Committee members, at the time of inspection. These respondents denied that they were with the Committee Members at the time of alleged inspection. 10. Report of damage Ext. DW1/A-14 (Item No.5), which was prepared much before the registration of the case, also shows that there was almost complete damage to the work, in question, because loss had been estimated at `90,000/-. Total cost of work was `95,692/-. 11. As regards the contention that firm of executing contractors was paid a sum of `95,692/- against the estimated cost of `57,769/-, 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 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 amount. 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 - 7 - 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 17, 2011 (ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J.