IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 394 of 2005. Decided on: 19th July, 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?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents. : M/s. Satyen Vaidya, Ajay Kochhar and M.S. Kanwar, Advocates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral) : State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 05.04.2005, rendered by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in Corruption Case No. 86-S/7 of 03/95, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar, Prem Chand Thakur, Mohan Singh and Pratap Singh, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 465, 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 Specific 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 respondents J.S. Parihar, while working as Executive Engineer, Prem Chand Thakur as Junior Engineer and Mohan Singh, Head Draftsman, allotted the work, namely, ‘Construction of 24’/36’ Wide Approach Road to Power House Site RD-2000 to RD-3155 mtrs. Sub-head, construction of retaining wall RD- 2085 to RD-2095 mtrs.’ for `86,187/-. PW-8 Rama Nand, Dy. S.P. 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-3/D, on the basis of which, ruka Ex. PW-8/A was sent. Thereafter, F.I.R. Ex.PA/1 was registered. The matter was investigated by the police thoroughly. The challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Respondents J.S. Parihar, Prem Chand and Mohan Singh, were charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 468, 465, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 & 6 of the H.P. Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. Respondent Pratap Singh was charged under Sections 420, 468, 465, 471, 467, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the H.P. Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. They pleaded not guilty. - 3 - 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their stand was that of denial simplicitor. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating Ex. PW-3/D and after taking into consideration the statements of material witnesses PW-3 N.C. Sharma and PW-9 K.R. Verma, acquitted the respondents. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy 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, Mr. Ajay Kochhar and Mr. M.S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the judgment dated 05.04.2005, 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 technical committee in the presence of JE/AEE/Executive Engineer concerned. The report of the technical committee is Ex. PW-3/D. 10. PW-3 Shri N.C. Sharma was one of the members of the technical committee. The report of the technical committee is Ex. PW-3/D. He has admitted that the retaining wall was in continuity and the wall at RD-2085 and RD-2095 was not opened in order to measure the same. No digging or excavation was carried out at the spot, thus, he could not disclose how - 4 - much of the retaining wall was existing below the natural surface level. He also admitted that for constructing the retaining wall, one has to go below the natural surface level by digging the land. He has also admitted that the actual base slant width, slant base of top triangular portion of the retaining wall existing on spot was not measured. 11. PW-9 Shri K.R. Verma was also one of the members of the technical committee. He has admitted that for the construction of retaining wall, one has to go below the natural surface level. He could not disclose the height of the retaining wall below the natural surface level, since no digging or excavation was carried out at the spot. According to him, as per measurement book, the slant height to be constructed was 9.64 mtrs.. 12. The height of the retaining wall as per the measurement book was 9.64 mtrs.. What was the slant height which the committee members have found at the spot, has not been disclosed in the report. The site plan was prepared after seven months. It was necessary for the members of the technical committee to dug up the foundation to measure the slant height of the retaining wall. None of the members of the technical committee have stated what was the exact slant height of the retaining wall on the spot. - 5 - 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 July 19, 2011. (bhupender) - 6 -