IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 243 of 2009 Decided on : May 7, 2011 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Raj Kumar and another …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. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. M.S. Guleria and Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocates. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 30.3.2009, of learned Special Judge, Chamba, whereby respondent Raj Kumar and Bhupinder Singh, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, which led to the charging and trial of the respondents, may be noticed. Respondent Raj Kumar applied for grant-in-aid alleging that his house had been damaged on account of unprecedented rains in the area. Respondent Bhupinder Singh herein certified that the house belonged to respondent and it had been extensively Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… damaged. A sum of `5000/- was sanctioned as grant on the basis of the aforesaid recommendation. 3. Matter was reported to Vigilance Cell of State Police by Jagat Ram, Up Pardhan and Gian Chand &Rattan Chand, Members of Gram Panchayat, Gagla, vide complaint Ext. PW1/A. Investigation was conducted, which revealed that the site on which the house stood belonged to the father of respondent Raj Kumar and not him. 4. On completion of investigation, report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C, alongwith relevant papers, was filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, who after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr. P.C. and hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, and perusing the record, felt that a prima-face case, under the aforesaid provisions of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, was made out against the respondents. They were charged accordingly. On their pleading not guilty, they were tried. 5. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses, besides proving a few documents to bring the charge home to the respondents. 6. Respondents did not deny that a grant of `5000/-, on account of damage to the house, was sanctioned and released in favour of Raj Kumar. But they alleged that the house in fact belonged to and was occupied by respondent …3… Raj Kumar, though the site was entered in the ownership of his father. 7. Learned trial Court concluded that case against the respondents did not stand proved, beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, acquitted the respondents. 8. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel, representing the respondents and gone through the entire record. 9. Application, which was moved by respondent Raj Kumar, is Ext. PW6/B. Respondent Bhupinder Singh made recommendation by writing on the application itself that house belonged to respondent Raj Kumar, but the owner of the site was his (Raj Kumar’s) father. 10. Now when Bhupinder Singh had written in his recommendation that the site of the house did not belong to respondent Raj Kumar but to his father, it cannot be said that he had the requisite dishonest intention to cause unlawful gain to respondent Raj Kumar. It is not the case of the prosecution that structure was not damaged or that it did not belong to Raj Kumar or was not occupied by him. 11. In view of the above stated position, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. May 7, 2011 (ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J