IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2005. Decided on: May 23, 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. J.S. Guleria, 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 3.8.2004, of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar and others, 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, 471 and 120-B IPC, with which they were charged. 2. Accusation, which led to the trial of the respondents, may be stated. Respondent J.S. Parihar was working as Executive Engineer in Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (Division No.2), while respondents, Parkash Chand Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - Sharma and Mohan Singh were working as Junior Engineer and Head Draughtsman, respectively, under him. Various works were got executed by the Corporation in which the above named respondents were employed. That Corporation was known as Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation. One of the works that was allegedly got executed by the aforesaid respondents was construction of GI wire crates for protection of septic Tank at Jhakri. 3. Above named respondents created false record, with regard to the execution of the aforesaid work. As per that record, work had been got executed from contractors Partap Sing and Devi Singh, respondents herein. As per allegedly false record, prepared by the above named respondents, who were the employees of the Corporation, cost of the work was `92687/-, though as per schedule of quantity attached with the estimate, value of the work was supposed to be `41,050/- plus addition upto 30%, as per schedules of Punjab Public Works Department and Central Public Works Department. 4. During investigation of case FIR No.25/1990, it came to light that as a matter of fact, short work had been got executed by the above named contractors, but wrong entries had been made in the measurement books by the other respondents to cause wrongful loss to the Corporation and wrongful gain to the said contractors. 5. A report, with respect to the alleged bungling, was prepared and sent to Enforcement Department by the - 3 - Investigating Officer of case FIR No.25/90. On the basis of that report, which is Ext. PW8/A, case was formally registered; vide FIR Ext. PW8/B. During the course of investigation, a Committee comprising of Senior Officers of H.P. State Electricity Board, including PW-3 N.C. Sharma, , PW-4 V.P. Gupta, both then working as Assistant Engineers and PW-9 PW-6 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer, visited the spot to find out whether any work had been executed on the spot. A team of Investigating Agency also accompanied them. According to the report, respondents J.S. Parihar and Parkash Chand Sharma were also with them, at the time of such inspection. On inspection, short work was found to have been executed on the spot. Report was prepared accordingly. Relevant portion of that report is Ext. PW3/B (para-5). 6. Specimen writings and signatures of the respondents were obtained and got compared with the documents, alleged to be false or forged. However, in view of the admission by the respondents that they had prepared the allegedly false record, including measurement books, evidence of Handwriting Expert is of no significance. Sanctions to prosecute respondents Parkash Chand, J.S. Parihar and Mohan Singh, were obtained from their Appointing Authorities and finally report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed in the Court of Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, who after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr. P.C. and hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel as also going through the record, charged the respondents as follows: - 4 - Sr. No. Name of respondent Offences with which charges 1. Parkash Chand Sharma Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 2. J.S. Parihar Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 3. Mohan Singh Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Specific corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 4. Partap Singh Sections 420, 465, 471, 120-B and Section 4 of the H.P. prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 5. Devi Singh Sections 420, 465, 471, 120-B and Section 4 of the H.P. prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 7. As already noticed, respondents J.S. Parihar, Parkash Chand Sharma and Mohan Singh did not deny having prepared the measurement books and having made payments to the contractors. They pleaded that entire work had been executed and on the spot also work existed, when inspection was conducted by the team of experts, during investigation. 8. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. - 5 - 9. It is prosecution’s own case that against 68.67 meters of crate work (lengthwise), 65.90 metres (lengthwise) crate work was found on the spot. That means, deficiency of crate work (lengthwise) was only to the extent of two metres. PW-4 V.P. Gupta, Superintending Engineer, who was heading the Committee, admitted that on the spot it was found that four crates had been removed. He admitted that in case removed four crates were also taken into account, there would not have been any deficiency in work, so far as length of crate work is concerned. The fact that four crates were found to have been removed, suggests that in fact there were four more crates and that is why the witness has stated that such numbers of crates had been removed. 10. As regards non-availability of boulder filling work, PW-1 V.L. Gupta, Assistant Engineer, also an employee of Nathpa Jhakri Corporation, stated that as per material-at-site (MAS) register, boulders, which were used for filling the gap between the crates and the hill side, had been removed for use elsewhere and that if this fact be taken into account, there would be no deficiency in the work of boulder filling, behind the crate work. In view of the above stated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. May 23, 2011 (ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J.