State of H.P. vs Partap Singh and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 27.3.2005, of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby Respondents Partap Singh and others, hereinafter called accused, have been acquitted of offences, u/s 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 120B IPC, with which they were charged.

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, 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 10 metres long retaining wall in front of Type-III Quarters, Block 6 at Jhakri RD 0 to RD 10 metres. This work was assigned to Respondent Partap Singh, who was a contractor. Respondent J.S. Parihar was Executive Engineer, working with the said Corporation. He was assisted by Respondent Parkash Chand Sharma, Junior Engineer, Respondent Mohan Singh, Head Draughtsman and deceased Man Mohan Sharma, AEE.

Allegations against the accused are that as per schedules of CPWD, the estimated cost of the work assigned to Respondent Partap Singh was supposed to be Rs. 26,340/-, but it was awarded for Rs. 33,380/-, with a view to causing wrongful gain to accused Partap Singh by the rest of the accused and deceased Manmohan Sharma, Assistant Extra Engineer. Finally, a sum of Rs. 32640/ was paid to Respondent Partap Singh, on account of the cost of the aforesaid work, as per record maintained by the other Respondents.

Another allegation against the Respondents is that in fact entire allotted work had not been executed. In place of 10 metres long retaining wall, which was required to be constructed, only 3 metres long retaining wall was constructed.

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-10 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer and PW-11 N.C. Sharma, Assistant Engineer, was constituted. The team visited the spot and found that retaining wall, which was there on the spot, measured 3 metres in length and on the basis of this report, it was concluded by the Investigating Agency, i.e. Enforcement Department, that not only the cost of the work was overestimated, but less than 1/3rd of the work was executed on the spot, though payment was made for the entire work. 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 were servants of Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation and the records were forged and falsified and offence, under Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, were committed.

On completion of investigation, report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, alongwith record, was submitted in the Court of Special Judge (Forests). After complying with the requirement of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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.

Prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of above named two members of the Inspecting Team, which inspected the spot and found that only three metres long retaining wall existed on the spot.

Respondents took the plea that entire 10 metres long retaining wall had been constructed on the spot, but there were unprecedented floods during the months of March/April, 1990, due to which, in the middle of the wall, 7 metres long portion was damaged and the serviceable stones of that damaged portion were utilized in another work, while the un-serviceable stones were still available on the spot, when the team visited the spot. Learned trial Court accepted the defence plea and consequently acquitted the Respondents.

We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the record.

Of course, it is admitted by PW-10 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer and PW-11 N.C. Sharma, Assistant Engineer, the star witnesses of the prosecution, in their cross-examination, that three metres long retaining wall, which they found on the spot, was not a complete wall, but part of a damaged/broken retaining wall. Not only this, they further admitted that serviceable stones of the damaged portion of the retaining wall had been utilized in another work and unserviceable stones were still lying on the spot, when they visited the spot. In view of this cross-examination of the above named two witnesses, there could not have been any escape from accepting the defence plea that the work was executed, in full, but a major portion of the wall had collapsed because of unprecedented rains, which fact was also admitted by the above named two witnesses.

As regards the other allegation that as per CPWD schedules, estimated cost of the work was supposed to be Rs. 26,340/- but the work was allotted for Rs. 33,380/, there is no evidence on record that the rates of CPWD were applicable at the relevant time. Rather, the evidence shows that the schedules of the CPWD were made applicable to the works of H.P. State Electricity Board, much later, partly in the year 1997 and partly in 2000.

As a result of above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.