State of H.P. vs Prem Chand Thakur and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 5.4.2005, of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby Respondents Prem Chand Thakur 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 cutting of earth work below Store Complex at Jhakri. This work was assigned to Respondents Partap Singh and Parkash Chand, who were contractors. Respondent J.S. Parihar was Executive Engineer, working with the said Corporation. He was assisted by Respondents Prem Chand Thakur, Junior Engineer and Mohan Singh, Head Draughtsman.

Allegation against the Respondents is that with a view to causing wrongful gain to the contractors, namely accused Partap Singh and Parkash Chand, record was forged and falsified, to indicate that cutting of earth was required and the work was assigned No. 363, in the records, though on a portion of this site, work of earth cutting had already been accomplished against work No. 417 and amount of Rs. 45,010/- was shown to have been paid, on account of the cutting of earth work, bearing No. 363. In fact, only a small quantity of work had been executed on the spot as the major portion of the work had already been executed as per work No. 417.

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-2 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer, was constituted. The team - 3 visited the spot and found that no work had been executed. On the basis of this report, the 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 offences, 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 member of the Inspecting Team, namely PW-2 K.R. Verma, Deputy Chief Accounts Officer.

Respondents took the plea that sites of the two works, i.e. Work No. 417, which had earlier been executed and Work No. 363, i.e. the work, in question, were different. Learned trial Court accepted the defence version and acquitted the Respondents.

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

PW-2 K.R. Verma, Dy. Chief Accounts Officer, the star witness of the prosecution, admitted in his cross-examination, in no uncertain terms, that the sites of the two works bearing Nos. 363 and 417 were different and that the two sites were separated by a retaining wall, which existed on the spot. In view of this cross-examination of the above named witness, there could not have been any escape from accepting the defence plea that the work, in question, had been executed on the spot.

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