IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 560 of 2002 Date of judgment: June 15, 2009 State of H.P. .. Appellant Versus Jyoti Parkash …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 6.6.2002 of trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Jyoti Parkash, who was tried for an offence, under Sections 353 IPC, has been acquitted. 2. Respondent is alleged to have assaulted a lineman of Water Supply Department, when he was releasing water supply connection in favour of some private party. Respondent allegedly snatched the wrench, with which said lineman (PW-1 Pritam Chand) had been tightening water pipes and fittings and also scuffled with him. Matter was reported to Panchayat by PW-1 Pritam Chand on the very day of the occurrence, i.e. 16.8.1999. Pardhan of the Panchayat forwarded that complaint to SDO (IPH). On 20.8.1999, PW-1 Pritam Chand lodged FIR Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - with the police. Case was registered and after investigation, respondent was challaned. 3. Prosecution examined Pritam Chand, the allegedly assaulted public servant as PW-1. It also examined one more person, namely PW-2 Ramesh Kumar, a subordinate of PW-1 Pritam Chand, who was helping him in releasing the water connection. 4. Respondent took the plea that there had been a direction by the Junior Engineer for release of public water connection and that when he asked PW-1 Pritam Chand to release the public connection for his village first, as per direction of the Junior Engineer, he not only refused to obey the direction of Junior Engineer, but also quarrelled with him and when he lodged a written complaint with the Junior Engineer, he (Pritam Chand PW1) lodged a false FIR against him as a counter blast. Learned trial Magistrate has believed the defence version and acquitted the respondent. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Though PW-1 Pritam Chand and his subordinate PW-2 Ramesh Kumar denied that any complaint was lodged by the respondent with the Junior Engineer on 16.8.1999, PW-3 Yuvraj, a Senior Assistant, working in the office of SDO (IPH) admitted that complaint Ext.D-1 had been lodged by the respondent against PW-1 Pritam Chand and his subordinate PW- 2 Ramesh Kumar, on 16.8.1999. A reading of the complaint shows that Junior Engineer had directed PW-1 Pritam Chand to - 3 - release water supply connection of public taps, before releasing private connections, but PW-1 Pritam Chand did not obey that direction of the Junior Engineer and instead quarrelled with the respondent. 7. PW-1 Pritam Chand, while in the witness box, admitted that a public tap connection had been sanctioned and the respondent had been asking him for its release, before releasing any private connection and that the incident took place only when he said that he would be releasing the public connection after releasing the private connection. 8. In view of the above stated position, it cannot be said that the learned trial Magistrate has committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. June 15, 2009(ss) (Surjit Singh), J