IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 159 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 1.1.2005, 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. Respondent J.S. Parihar, Parkash Chand and Mohan Singh, were the employees of H.P. State Electricity Board. They went on deputation to Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation. The aforesaid Corporation Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - 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 site development for construction of new septic tank for additional sewerage line at Jhakri. Work was allotted to respondents Rakesh Gupta, Ranjit Thakur and Pankaj Manchanda, by respondent J.S. Parihar. 3. During investigation of case FIR No.25/1990, it was noticed that though a sum of `96,706/- had been paid to respondents Ranjit Thakur, Rakesh Gupta and Pankaj Manchanda , 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. PW7/A. On the basis of that report, case was formally registered vide FIR Ext. PW7/B. 4. A team of senior Officers of State Electricity Board, which included PW-3 N.C. Sharma, visited the spot on 12.10.1990 and found that against the paid quantity of 2153.83 cubic metres excavation work, only 1671.96 cubic metres excavation work had been done and thus there was shortfall of 481.87 cubic meters work, cost of which comes to `21,636/-. 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 - 3 - other to cause wrongful gain to contractors Ranjit Singh, Rakesh Gupta and Pankaj Manchanda 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. 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 . - 4 - 5. Ranjit Singh Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B and Section 4 of the H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 6. Pankaj Manchanda 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. Plea taken by them is that while measuring excavation work, the Committee Members though did take into account the excavation of the site of the retaining wall on the back side of the septic tank, but they ignored the excavation done at the site of the front retaining wall of the septic tank and that had they taken into account the excavation done at the site of the front retaining wall of the septic tank also, no deficiency in the excavation work would have been reported by them. 8. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 9. The sole witness examined by the prosecution to prove the inspection report Ext. PW3/E, namely PW-3 N.C. - 5 - Sharma, admitted, in no uncertain terms, in his cross- examination, that the Committee though did take into account the excavation in respect of the back retaining wall, it did not do so in respect of the front wall. He offered no explanation for ignoring the front wall. He admitted that in case the front retaining wall of the septic tank and the excavation carried out at the site of such wall were also taken into account, there would not have been any deficiency in the excavation work. 10. In view of the aforesaid admissions by PW-3 N.C. Sharma, it cannot be said that the there was any deficiency in the work shown to have been executed in the record. For the foregoing reasons, 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.