IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 388 of 2005. Decided on: 19th July, 2011. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- J.S. Parihar and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents. : M/s. Satyen Vaidya, Ajay Kochhar and M.S. Kanwar, Advocates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral) : State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 05.04.2005, rendered by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in Corruption Case No. 45-S/7 of 03/96, whereby respondents J.S. Parihar, Daulat Ram, Mohan Singh, Ranjit Thakur and Rakesh Gupta, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 465, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that respondents J.S. Parihar, while working as Executive Engineer, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Daulat Ram as Junior Engineer and Mohan Singh, Head Draftsman, allotted the work, namely, ‘Site development for shelter accommodation Sub Head, Cutting in earth work at Jhakri and for construction of retaining wall RD-0 to RD-15 mtrs. for `94639/-. PW-11 Rama Nand, Dy. S.P. while investigating F.I.R. No. 25/90, noticed certain irregularities in the work of Jhakri Division. He has requested the superior officers for constituting a technical committee to look into the matter. Consequently, the H.P. State Electricity Board constituted a technical committee to detect the irregularities committed during the execution of work in Jhakri Division. The committee submitted its report Ex. PW-3/D, on the basis of which, ruka Ex. PW-11/A was sent. Thereafter, F.I.R. Ex.PA/1 was registered. The matter was investigated by the police thoroughly. The challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Respondents J.S. Parihar, Daulat Ram and Mohan Singh were charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 420, 468, 465, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 & 6 of the H.P. Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. Respondents Rakesh Gupta and Ranjeet Thakur were charged under Sections 420, 468, 465, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the H.P. Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. They pleaded not guilty. 4. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Respondents were also - 3 - examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their stand was that of denial simplicitor. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating Ex. PW-3/D and after taking into consideration the statements of material witnesses PW-3 Naresh Chander and PW-6 K.R. Verma, acquitted the respondents. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case. According to him, learned Special Judge (Forest) has not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. 7. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Mr. Ajay Kochhar and Mr. M.S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the judgment dated 05.04.2005, passed by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record meticulously. 9. The site was inspected by the technical committee in the presence of JE/AEE/Executive Engineer concerned. The report of the technical committee is Ex. PW-3/D. 10. PW-3 Shri Naresh Chander was one of the members of the technical committee. The committee visited the spot on 05.12.1990 and again on 11.01.1991 and found that the slant height of the retaining wall was less than entered in the measurement book. He has categorically admitted that for construction of retaining wall, one has to go below the natural surface level. - 4 - 11. PW-6 Shri K.R. Verma was also one of the members of the technical committee. He has also admitted that for construction of retaining wall, one has to go below the natural surface level. The height of 5.20 mtrs. of the retaining wall was measured from the natural surface level and he could not depose about the height of the retaining wall below the natural surface level. 12. The members of the technical committee PW-3 Shri Naresh Chander and PW-6 Shri K.R. Verma have deposed that the technical committee visited the spot on 05.12.1990 and again on 11.01.1991. The committee found the slant height of the retaining wall less than entered in the measurement book. It is, thus, evident that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. The foundation was not dug up to ascertain the exact slant height of the retaining wall. It was necessary to dug up the foundation to see the slant height. What was the exact slant height on the spot, has not been measured by the members of the technical committee. According to the measurement book, the slant height was 5.70 mtrs., but the technical committee has not reported what was the slant height on the spot. 13. In view of the abovestated position, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), Judge (Rajiv Sharma), Judge July 19, 2011. (bhupender) - 5 - - 6 -