IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 92 of 2004. Decided on: 19th April, 2011. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Dharam Singh 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 __________________________________________________________ For the appellant. : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For respondent No. 2. : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. None for respondent No. 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral) : State has appealed against the judgment dated 19.11.2003 of the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondent Dharam Singh, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Chanog, Tarun Nehru, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chanog and Suresh Kumar, Junior Engineer in the office of Block Development Officer, Mashobra, have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2. Prosecution case may be stated thus. On a complaint made by some residents of the village that money sanctioned for various projects for Gram Panchayat, Chanog had been mis-appropriated by the Pradhan of the Panchayat, namely, respondent Dharam Singh, in connivance with the Secretary of the Panchayat, namely, Tarun Nehru (respondent No.2) and Suresh Kumar, Junior Engineer, office of Block Development Officer, Mashobra (respondent No. 3), Joint Director, Panchayati Raj, namely, Bal Krishan Sharma (PW-18), was deputed to visit the spot and submit a detailed report. The said Joint Director submitted report, Ex. PW-5/A, according to which, money sanctioned for various projects including construction of a toilet (urinal), had not been utilized, but appeared to have been mis-appropriated. On the basis of the aforesaid report, three cases were registered against the respondents, one of those cases pertained to non-utilization, which implied mis-appropriation of funds, sanctioned for construction of toilet (urinal). The present matter arises out of that F.I.R. 3. Prosecution case is that a sum of `5947/- was released in favour of the Panchayat for construction of toilet/urinal. The money was paid in two installments. One installment was paid on 08.01.1994 and the other on 14.07.1995. However, no work had been executed on the spot till the inspection of site by PW-18 Bal Krishan, Joint Director, Panchayati Raj, sometime in the month of August 1996. - 3 - 4. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code alongwith relevant papers was filed in the Court of learned Special Judge (Forests), who after complying with the provisions of Section 207, Cr. P.C., perusing the record and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, charged the respondents with the offences, under Sections 218, 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge. They were, therefore, put on trial. Prosecution examined 27 witnesses to bring the charge home to the respondents. It also proved a number of documents, most of which have no relevance for the purpose of the present case, as the same pertain to some other items of works, with respect to which, separate cases were registered. 6. Learned trial Court concluded that the evidence on record does not prove that any amount of money was released in favour of the respondents and, if that is so, the question of mis- appropriation or mis-utilization of the released amount does not arise. Also, it has been observed by the learned trial Court that when the spot was inspected by the Investigating Officer, it was found that construction of toilet/urinal was complete, but for the plastering of walls and this fact also negated the prosecution allegation of mis-appropriation of money. Learned trial court has also observed that there was no time limit fixed for construction of the toilet/urinal and that at the most, this can be said to be a - 4 - case of delayed execution of work and not mis-appropriation of funds, allegedly released for the work. With the aforesaid findings and discussions, learned trial court acquitted the respondents. 7. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General, as also learned counsel representing the respondents and gone through the record. 8. We find no evidence on record proving that any amount of money was withdrawn by respondent No. 1 or was released to him by any other authority. Prosecution relies upon 11 documents, Ex. PW1/A-1 to Ex. PW1/A-11 and Ex. PW-1/B- 1 to Ex. PW-1/B-11 to prove the alleged entrustment. These documents are in the nature of applications submitted for release of money and in the nature of receipts furnished for the money by respondent No. 1. None of these documents pertain to release/payment of money for construction of toilet/urinal. It is not the case of the prosecution that the money, allegedly released in favour of respondent No. 1 was required to be utilized within some given time frame. As a matter of fact, he never asked for payment of any money for construction of toilet/urinal, nor has the prosecution proved on record any document showing that any time frame was fixed for construction of toilet/urinal. 9. Case was registered against the respondents in the month of August, 1996. PW-5 Jai Lal Kanan, District Panchayat Officer, visited the spot in September 1996 and found that walls of toilet had been erected and lintel roof had also been laid on - 5 - those walls. Similarly, Investigating Officer of the case, namely, Gurdeep Singh (PW-21) stated that when he visited the spot on 27.08.1996, he found that walls had been constructed and roof laid on those walls, though the plastering of walls remained to be done. 10. Prosecution also relied upon muster rolls, Ex. PW- 5/D-24, Ex. PW-5/D-25 and Ex. PW-5/D-39 in support of its charge of forgery, as also mis-appropriation of funds sanctioned for construction of toilet/urinal. None of these muster rolls pertains to construction of toilet/urinal. Ex. PW-5/D-24 and Ex. PW-5/D-25 pertain to construction of school building. In Ex. PW-5/D-39, name of the work is not mentioned. 11. 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 April 19, 2011. (bhupender) - 6 -