IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 246 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?1 No. __________________________________________________________ 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 01.04.2005, rendered by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in Corruption Case No. 13-S/7 of 03/95, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar, Prem Chand Thakur, Mohan Singh and Raj Kumar, 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 as Junior Engineer and Mohan Singh, Head Draftsman, allotted the work for site development and construction of retaining wall for overhead storage reservoir at Jhakri RD-0 to RD-10 mtrs. for `46392/-. 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-1/C, 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, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 & 6 of the H.P. Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. Respondent Raj Kumar was charged under Sections 420, 468, 465, 471, 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-1/C and after taking into consideration the statements of material witness PW-1 G.P. Saroch and PW-2 Shri 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 01.04.2005, 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-1/C. 10. PW-1 Shri G.P. Saroch was one of the members of the technical committee. According to him, the committee visited the spot and prepared the report Ex. PW-1/C. He has admitted that for construction of retaining wall, one has to go below the natural surface level. There is no reference of excavation being - 4 - carried out at the spot. He could not depose what was the height of the retaining wall below the natural surface level. 11. PW-2 Shri K.R. Verma was also one of the members of the technical committee. According to him also, no excavation was carried out at the spot. The committee has measured only the exposed portion of the retaining wall. 12. What emerges from the statements of the members of the technical committee, is that they have only measured the height above the natural surface level to determine the slant height of the retaining wall. It was necessary for the members of the technical committee to go below the natural surface level. The committee has also not given the exact height which they found at the spot in the report, Ex. PW-1/C. 13. It is, thus, evident that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. The foundation was not dug up to ascertain the exact slant height of the retaining wall. It was necessary to dug up the foundation to see the slant height. What was the exact slant height on the spot, has not been measured by the members of the technical committee. 14. 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) - 5 - - 6 -