IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 514 of 2004. Decided on: 17.05.2011. ___________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. … Appellant. Versus J.S. Parihar and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. M.S. Kanwar, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral): State has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 27.8.2008 of the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar and others, who were charged with and tried for offences, Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 5 and 6 of the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 and Sections 420, 467. 468. 471, 218 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution is that in the year 1990 when respondents J.S. Parihar, Prakash Chand and Mohan were working as Executive Engineer, Junior Engineer, Head Draftsman, respectively, with the H.P. State Electricity Board and were on deputation with Nathpa Jhakari Power Corporation, they prepared false record regarding excavation of earth for development of Block Nos.14 and 15 of Type-I quarters of the said Corporation and showed payment of a sum of ` 42,206/- to respondents Rakesh Gupta and Ranjeet Thakur, who allegedly executed that work. 3. According to the prosecution, there was a criminal conspiracy among the respondents. The criminal conspiracy was that false record would be prepared and payment made to the respondents Rakesh Gupta and Ranjeet Thakur. In pursuance of the alleged conspiracy, respondents J.S. Parihar, Prakash Chand and Mohan Singh prepared false record of award of the said work to respondents Rakesh Gupta and Ranjeet Thakur and the execution of the said work by them. As a matter of fact, work that was executed by respondents Rakesh Gupta and Ranjeet Thakur on the spot, was short of the work shown - 3 - to have been executed. As per letter of award of work, excavation was to be carried out to the extent of 23.75 meters width on one side and 26.70 meters width on the other. Actually, the excavation was done to the extent of 15 meters width on each side. False entry was made in the measurement book indicating that the work had been executed as per letter of award of work. This led to excess payment of ` 16,940/- to respondents No.4 and 5. 4. Respondents took the plea that the work had been executed on the spot as per letter of award of the work, but after the execution of the work in the month of March, 1990, there had been unprecedented rains and floods in the area, due to which land sliding on the two sides took place, because of which slants/slopes appeared on both the sides and while carrying out the inspection on the spot, during the investigation of the case, measurement had been done in respect of only that portion which remained between the slants/slopes and that area was 15 meters only. It is also their plea that had the measurement been carried out upto the retaining wall, i.e. the point from where the slant started, the width would have been as per entries in the measurement book. The learned trial Court accepted the plea of the respondents and acquitted them. - 4 - 5. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also the counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. 6. PW-6, N.C. Sharma, posted as Assistant Engineers with the H.P. State Electricity Board, who was one of the members of the Technical Committee that assisted the investigating agency in carrying out the measurement work on the spot, admitted in his cross- examination that there were slants and slopes on the spot, which appeared to have surfaced on account of land slides after the construction of retaining walls and that had the team carried out the measurements from outer surface of the slant upto the retaining wall, over which the slant appeared on account of land slide, there would not have been a difference in the width on both the sides and it would have been equivalent to the width as recorded in the measurement book. 7. In view of the above stated position, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is therefore dismissed. (Surjit Singh), Judge. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. May 17, 2011. (sck).