IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2005. Decided on: July 25, 2011. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus J.S. Parihar & 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 6.5.2005, of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar 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 papers 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 construction of Culvert No. 6 at RD 2530, with retaining wall at RD 2523.70 to 2528.70 and 2532.30 to 2537.30 metres. This work was assigned to respondent Rakesh Gupta, who was a contractor. Respondent J.S. Parihar was Executive Engineer, working with the said Corporation. He was assisted by respondent Suraj Parkash, Junior Engineer and Mohan Singh, Head Draughtsman. 3. Allegation against the respondents is that no culvert was constructed on the spot, but in the records, it was shown that the work had been executed and the amount recorded as cost of the work was shown to have been paid to contractor Rakesh Gupta. 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-6 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer and PW-11 G.P. Saroch, Executive Engineer, was constituted. The team visited the spot 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 - 3 - 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-6 K.R. Verma, Deputy Chief Accounts Officer and PW-11 G.P. Saroch, Executive Engineer. 7. Respondents took the plea that culvert, in question, had been constructed on the spot, but there were heavy rains in the area in the months of March and April, 1990, as a result of which the culvert got buried under the debris. They also pleaded that even before the visit of the Committee, constituted to assist the Investigating Agency, entire damage caused to the project due to unprecedented rains was reported to the authorities of NJPC and a team constituted by the project authorities visited the spot and submitted report Ext. DA, with regard to the culvert, in question, per which the road, on which the culvert was - 4 - supposed to exist, had been completely washed away by the floods, caused due to unprecedented rains. Relying upon this report Ext. DA, trial Court accepted the defence plea and acquitted the accused-respondents. 8. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 9. Aforesaid report Ext. DA is duly proved. It suggests that portion of road between RD 2518 to 2560 had been completely washed away in the floods, caused due to unprecedented rains. The culvert, in question, was supposed to be at RD 2530. That means, it was on a portion of the road, which was reported to have been completely washed away, per report Ext. DA. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court that the culvert, in question, was washed away in floods, caused due to unprecedented rains. Hence the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. July 25, 2011 (ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J.