State of H.P. vs Dharam Singh and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—State has appealed against the judgment, dated 13.1.2004, of learned Special Judge Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby Respondent Ravinder Kumara Rana, employed as Junior Engineer with the Block Development Office and Respondent Shyam Lal, Panchayat Secretary, have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Respondent Ravinder Kumar Rana remained posted as Junior Engineer in Sangrah Development Block during the year 1994-95. Shyam Lal, the other Respondent, remained posted as Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Deva Manal during the same period. One Mohan Singh (now dead) moved an application in the year 1994 for grant of money for construction of a house under Indira Awas Yojana. That application is Ext. PW5/E and is dated 4.10.1004. Respondent Ravinder Kumar Rana, in his capacity as Junior, recommended release of first installment of Rs. 5000/-. This amount was to be released as advance money. Thereafter, an application Ext.PW5/H, dated 7.8.1995, was submitted by Mohan Singh in which it was stated that he had almost completed the construction of house and was in immediate need of Rs. 6000/-. Respondent Ravinder Kumar Rana again recommended the release of Rs. 6000/-.

On 8.3.1996, another application was moved by Mohan Singh for release of the remaining amount. Respondent Shyam Lal, in his capacity as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, recommended the release of last installment. In his recommendation he recorded that construction of the house was complete.

As a matter of fact, Mohan Singh was not eligible for grant of any benefit under Indira Awas Yojana, on account of his name having not been included in the short lists Exts. PW5/B and PW8/C, which were prepared on the basis of a resolution of Gram Panchayat, passed on 26.7.1995.

It is also the case of the prosecution that Mohan Singh had not raised any construction, when recommendations were made by the two Respondents, in one of which it was recorded that house had been partly constructed and in the other it was recorded that construction was complete.

Learned trial Court concluded that evidence on record indicated that Mohan Singh deceased was entitled to the grant of money under Indira Awas Yojana, on account of his name figuring at Sr. No. 1586 of the list of IRDP persons and also the evidence on record suggested that he had constructed a house, with the money sanctioned in his favor.

We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned Counsel, representing the Respondents and scanned the entire record.

Case of the prosecution is that name of Mohan Singh being not there in lists Exts. PW5/B and PW8/C, both of which are based on some resolution of the Gram Panchayat, he was not entitled to grant-in-aid. No doubt, by the resolution passed by the Panchayt on 26.7.1995, some persons out of IRDP list had been short-listed for preferential treatment, in the sense that they were to be granted aid on priority basis and name of Mohan Singh does not find mention in these two lists, but application for grant of money, under Indira Awas Yojana had been moved by Mohan Singh much before the preparation of aforesaid two lists, pursuant to resolution dated 26.7.1995. He moved application on 4.10.1994, which is Ext. PW5/E. His name is there in the consolidated list Ext. PW8/D of IRDP persons.

Next allegation is that Mohan Singh had not constructed any house. To prove this allegation, prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Niranjan Singh and PW8 Jia Lal, I.O. Niranjan Singh, in his deposition as PW-1, testified that when the police visited the spot, construction of house was in progress. In cross-examination, he stated that construction had started six months prior to the visit of police to the spot. Police visited the spot in June, 1996, per deposition of PW-8 Jia Lal. There is nothing in the testimony of PW-8 Jia Lal whether the house was being constructed or its construction had already been completed or that no construction, on the spot, had taken place. He stated that he got the site photographed. Photographs have, however, not been produced. The presumption, therefore, is that had the photographs been produced and proved, they would have negated the prosecution allegation that no construction had been carried out on the spot.

In view of the above stated position, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.