IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2005. Decided on: July 25, 2011. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus Prem Chand & 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 the respondents: M/s Satyen Vaidya and M.S. Kanwar, Advocates. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 16.5.2005, of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondents Prem Chand Thakur and others, hereinafter called accused, 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, 47, 465 and 120-B IPC, with which they were charged. 2. Accusation, which led to the trial of the respondents-accused, may be stated. Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation, a public undertaking, was allotted a site by the side of Satluj River in Rampur Sub Division of Shimla District, Whet her report ers of t he l ocal pap ers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - for setting up a Hydro Power Project. In connection with the said project, the Corporation wanted to execute various civil works, which it thought of executing, by engaging various contractors. One such work was site development for bench for overhead storage reservoir at Jhakri. This work was assigned to respondents Partap Singh and Parkash Chand, who were contractors. Respondent J.S. Parihar was Executive Engineer, working with the said Corporation. He was assisted by respondents Prem Chand Thakur, Junior Engineer and Mohan Singh, Head Draughtsman. 3. Allegation against the respondents is that no excavation of earth was involved for preparing the Bench for placing water storage tanks, as on the site, in question, a Shivling was already installed and two water storage tanks were also placed. But, with a view to causing wrongful gain to the contractors, namely accused Partap Singh and Parkash Chand, record was forged and falsified, to indicate that excavation work was executed on the spot and an amount of `54730/- was shown to have been paid, on account of excavation. In fact, no work had been executed on the spot. 4. Matter came to be reported to the Enforcement Department of the State. Case was formally registered against the respondents-accused, vide FIR Ext. PA/1. During the course of investigation, a team of some officers from H.P. State Electricity Board, comprising, inter alia, of PW-2 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer and PW-3 N.C. Sharma, Assistant Engineer, was constituted. The team visited the spot - 3 - and found that no work had been executed. On the basis of this report, the Enforcement Department felt that it was a case of criminal conspiracy among the accused and in furtherance of that conspiracy, offence of criminal misconduct was committed by those of the respondents-accused, who were servants of Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation and the records were forged and falsified and offences, under Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, were committed. 5. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr. P.C., alongwith record, was submitted in the Court of Special Judge (Forests). After complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr. P.C., trial Court felt that a prima-facie case, under the aforesaid penal provisions of law, was made out against all the aforesaid accused. They were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and were, therefore, put on trial. 6. Prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of above named two members of the Inspecting Team, namely PW-2 K.R. Verma, Deputy Chief Accounts Officer and PW-3 N.C. Sharma, Assistant Engineer. 7. Respondents took the plea that cutting of earth, as per letter of award of work, was involved and that the work, in question, was actually executed on the spot. Learned trial Court believed the defence version and acquitted the respondents. - 4 - 8. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 9. Learned trial Court believed the defence version, holding that profile of the site, prior to the allotment of the work, in question, had not been proved nor any contour plan or cross-section plan of the site had been proved. Also, no local witness had been examined to substantiate the allegation that a Shivling was there on the spot, prior to the award of the work to the contractors or that water storage tanks were also available on the spot before that. 10. PW-2 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer and PW-3 N.C. Sharma, Assistant Engineer, who were Members of the Inspection Committee, very categorically admitted in their cross-examination that they did not consult any local person for making the observation that a Shivling and two water storage tanks were there on the spot, prior to the allotment of the work and that they made a report to this effect, based on their own visual observation. 11. In view of above stated position, we se no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. July 25, 2011 (ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J.