IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2005. Decided on: May 30, 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) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 14.12.2004, 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. Allegations, which led to the prosecution of the respondents, may be noticed. Respondents J.S. Parihar, Parkash Chand, Mohan Singh and deceased Manmohan Sharma, were the employees of H.P. State Electricity Board. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - They went on deputation to Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation. The aforesaid Corporation undertook the work of setting up a Hydro Power Project at Nathpa Jhakri. For the execution of the work of the project, a number of contractors were employed for doing civil work. One of the works pertained to the providing/laying additional sewerage line for transit accommodation, Blocks IV to VI at Jhakri. Work was allotted to respondents Rakesh Gupta and Ranjit Thakur by respondent J.S. Parihar. It included, besides providing/laying additional sewerage line, as aforesaid, doing of some excavation work also. 3. During investigation of case FIR No.25/1990, it was noticed that though a sum of `97552/- had been paid to respondents Ranjit Thakur and Rakesh Gupta, the civil contractors, as a matter of fact, the work carried out by them was much less than the work shown to have been executed in the measurement books. A report was made to the Enforcement Department by the Investigating Officer of case FIR No.25/90, vide report Ext. PW10/A. On the basis of that report, case was formally registered vide FIR Ext. PA/1. 4. A team of senior Officers of Sta te Electricity Board, which included PW-4 K.R. Verma and PW-7 R.C. Chopra visited the spot on 12.10.1990 and found that 11 metres pipe line was missing on the spot. Four Ts, four bends, sixteen lead cocked joints were also not there. Excavation was also found to be less than shown in the measurement books. Total loss caused to the Corporation, on account of less excavation and - 3 - missing of 11 metres long pipe line and the aforesaid items like Ts, bends, lead cocked joints was assessed at `53,024/-. Respondents J.S. Parihar, Parkash Chand and Mohan Singh were found to have prepared false record in the form of Measurement Books and the clearance of bills for the work. All the respondents were alleged to have conspired with each other to cause wrongful gain to contractors Ranjit Thakur and Rakesh Gupta and wrongful loss to the Corporation, in the aforesaid manner, in furtherance of their alleged criminal conspiracy. 5. On completion of investigation, Appointing Authorities of those of the respondents, who are public servants, were approached to accord sanction to prosecute them. When sanctions were received, 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. Parkash Chand Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 218, 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 218, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. - 4 - 3. Mohan Singh Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 218, 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, 468, 471, 120-B and Section 4 of the H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 5. Ranjit Thakur Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B and Section 4 of the H.P. prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 6. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses, besides proving the report of officials of H.P. State Electricity Board, who inspected the spot, during investigation. It also proved certain documents to prove the allegation that more work was shown to have been executed on the spot, in the measurement books, compared to the work found on the spot by the Committee. 7. Respondents were examined by the learned trial Court, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They took the plea that there had been unprecedented rains, floods and land slides in the area in March/April, 1990 and because of those rains, floods and land slides, a number of civil works, executed by the different contractors, were damaged, some of them partially and some of them totally and the damage was assessed and reports submitted to the higher authorities, long before the registration of the case. They stated that the work, in question, had also been damaged, because of the aforesaid rains, floods and land slides, and report, copy Ex. DAA (item No.16) was prepared and submitted to the higher authorities, - 5 - in which the amount of damage was shown to be `20,000/-. They also pleaded that the Committee had not carried out the inspection properly, inasmuch as it inspected the horizontal pipe line, taking it to be a straight line, whereas in fact it was in the shape of letter “Z” of English alphabet and because of this not only the length of the pipe was measured short, but various allegedly missing items which had been used in vertical lines also escaped counting. 8. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 9. PW-4 K.R. Verma and PW-7 R.C. Chopra, members of the Committee, admitted in their cross-examination that the Committee inspected the work, in question, on the assumption that it was in the form of a straight horizontal line and that vertical lines had not been taken into account, while preparing the report. They admitted that had the vertical lines been also taken into account, the loss reported vide report Ex. PW-4/D (para-56) would have been much lower than reported. They also admitted that some of the allegedly missing items, i.e. Ts, Bends and lead cocked joints, as also the part of the pipes could have been used in vertical lines. 10. In view of the aforesaid admissions by PW-4 K.R. Verma and PW-7 R.C. Chopra, it cannot be said that the loss to the work, in question, was more than `20,000/-, as was reported much before the registration of the case, vide damage report Ex.DAA (item No.16). - 6 - 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 30, 2011(ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J.